Talk with Rick Mattson

Generational Differences 7: Talking Across the Divide

2012-02-13T00:55:00.003-06:00

Why is the following diagram so important?

(You may not have time or inclination or keen enough eye-sight to pick through it. So I summarize it below.)

It's called the Entry Posture Diagram,* and it's used in cross-cultural missions training.

To my thinking it nails the issues of how the generations can and should talk with each other.

Essentially, it says this: When you enter into cross-cultural interaction, your initial attitude (posture) will determine your eventual success (or lack).

Premises determine conclusions :)

If you begin with openness, trust, adaptability, you're likely to conclude with understanding and a deepened relationship with that "other-generational" person in your life.

Naturally, the opposite is true as well. Starting off with suspicion, fear and prejudice will create a serious wall of separation when differences arise. The relationship will crash and burn.

Example: Conscientious parent, extremely concerned about 17-year old child's $100/month media subscription fees, decides to act decisively.

Parent thinks like this: "I grew up fine without all these high-tech gadgets. . . MY parents would never have allowed . . . What does GOD say about stewardship of time/money? . . . 24/7 tech is killing young people . . . SOMEONE needs to stand up for what's right . . . I'm not running a popularity contest here . . . "

But of course this approach -- this posture -- is doomed before the first word is uttered.

It may even appear to work in the short run. But a new wedge of mistrust will enter the relationship. And something way bigger than $100/mo will be in jeapordy.

Darn, I'm out of space. More next week. . .

*EPD: Google it for more info, new diagrams, updates.

Generational Differences 6: Advice to the Young Generation

2012-01-30T10:57:00.000-06:00

Here is my hope and prayer for the 35-and-under crowd as they face generational differences with their elders (see my prior five posts):

1. Stay strong, be yourself. You really are different than your elders in many ways, and different is OK (usually).

A few of the cool college students I work with

2. Be humble now or be humbled later. One day you'll be passing 35, 45, 50, 60. I know it seems a long way off but that's what everyone says. It comes faster than you think.

The NEXT generation may have some strong opinions

Remember that the generation after you will do things differently than you -- and they'll think it's all a big improvement. They'll be mocking your old ipads and i-anything and Google+ and "contemporary" praise music and wondering why you're so stuck in the mud.

Knowing the transient nature of your own styles and preferences will help. Nothing is permanent except God's truth.

3. Cash in on your gains. That is, take advantage of the steps forward you've made in inclusiveness, social justice, racial reconciliation, community and your Jesus-based theology.

My generation has much to learn from you in these areas -- as do the even younger ones mentioned above.

4. Seek out older wisdom. I hope you'll act now because older wisdom may not always be readily available. At some point our lips will grow silent.

It will happen like this: We will release to you all the positions of leadership and influence in our churches -- the churches that we and our forbears built from the ground up which stand as symbols of God's presence in our culture.

Then you'll need to be intentional about inviting us to teach, pray and give counsel.

(Note to church and family: Someday, to reach me in the months of Jan/Feb, you'll need to call Florida :)

Generational Differences 5: Worship

2012-01-22T19:56:00.000-06:00

First hour at a church I visited this morning, we sang contemporary praise songs.

Second hour I led a few hymns for an older adult Sunday School.

It was a study in contrasts . . . as reflected in the following chart:

Worship music can be a sensitive subject for the oldsters. Many feel disenfranchised by the turn away from hymnody.

Young people, however, have a quite different response when their style of music is not played. They don't sit there fuming in the pews (or write nasty emails to the pastors).

No. They simply don't show up.

It seems to me we all need to hold on to our worship style preferences pretty lightly -- or be defeated by disunity.

Generational Differences 4

2012-01-16T07:49:00.003-06:00

What are the implications for young people in the inter-generational church?

I promised to respond to this question but I need to put it off for a week or two.

Instead, here are a few more generational differences. Category is evangelism:

It seems to me that white evangelical leaders have spent the past 50 years reacting to the *social gospel. We've defined ourselves, in part, by what we're not.

But 20 years ago, following the lead of Christian colleges and parachurch youth ministries, white evangelical churches began taking kids (and adult sponsors) on service projects to the inner-city and overseas.

They pounded nails, fed the poor and cleaned up waste areas.

Then the critical next step: They rediscovered community service in the Bible.

This was a little confusing to the older generations. Was it a return to the social gospel? Or a new strategy for preaching the gospel?

Actually, neither.

Rather, service and proclamation were integrated. They were both "gospel" and became inseparable for young people (and many people of color, for whom this was always true).

Yet, white oldsters on the whole remained wary.

Ergo: Generational difference, and thus the chart above.

* "Social gospel" refers to an earthly kingdom of God which is established by education and service. It generally rejects the ideas of original sin, personal salvation and Hell.

For further reading: I'd recommend books by Wheaton evangelism professor Rick Richardson. His Evangelism Outside the Box and Reimagining Evangelism are excellent.

On Vacation

2012-01-08T21:46:00.002-06:00

See you in a week or two!

Generational Differences 3

2012-01-01T22:16:00.000-06:00

With one foot in middle-age boomer culture and the other foot in collegiate ministry, I offer the following observations on the differences between generations.

This is part 3 in the series.

See if you agree with me:

What does it all mean for my generation?

1. We've been rightfully disappointed in young people for abandoning the church the past 20 years.

2. But will we stick around when they come to power in our churches (as they already are), the next 20 years?

Middle age trying to connect with students at Michigan State

What does it all mean for 35-and-under's?

Tune in next week.

Generational Differences 2

2011-12-19T08:18:00.004-06:00

If you're in middle age (like myself) or older, and you start hanging around young Christians, you'll probably notice that they see the world a little differently.

The chart below compares a few basic beliefs of older and younger Christians.

This is part two in my comparision of generations.

I'm defining "older" as 45 and up, "younger" as 35 and under. (35-45 can go either way.)

Of course these comparisons are general trends and don't represent every individual.

In any case, a question that I ponder all the time is what these differences mean for ministry in and through the church.

What do you think?

Generational Differences 1

2011-12-12T08:24:00.007-06:00

For the next few weeks I'd like to highlight the differences between younger and older generations, in several different categories.

This should help you understand your younger (or older) counterparts at your church -- or in your home.

Roughly speaking, I'm talking about the differences between church people who are 35 and under, and 45 and older. That middle ground -- 35-45 -- can go either way.

Some of what follows may seem obvious. But don't be fooled. "We" think "they" are just like us all the time, which they most certainly are not.

This week's category: personal values

You may find yourself relating best to some of the values of the other generation. Congrats. That means you're moving toward understanding. No small feat these days.

Outreach Strategy Extraordinaire

2011-12-04T17:40:00.000-06:00

A sophisticated outreach program in a church or parachurch ministry might look something like this:

Level 1: Social events. Invite everyone!

Level 2: Content events. The Christian worldview is presented in a thoughtful way. Venues could be talks, discussions, debates, panels, workshops. Audience is seekers.

Level 3: Harvest events. An explicit call to faith is made. Aimed at friends and acquaintances who may be ready to follow Jesus full-time.

Keys to success:

Everyone in the ministry knows at which "level" the next event is offered. Then members know who (and who not) to invite.
Quality: Especially important at the second level, events must be excellent. Building trust with your own people takes a long time to establish (but, of course, only a moment to break).

A Level 2 event I participated in recently with some atheists

One last thought: It seems to me the missing piece in many ministries is Level 2 above. Topics can range from apologetic (existence of God) to educational (managing your money).

At these events you want your people to be glad they brought a friend -- or disappointed if they didn't.

A Defining Moment

2011-11-28T09:25:00.000-06:00

Recently on a college campus in the midwest I was informed by InterVarsity staff about a certain philosophy professor -- "in fact, he's sitting over there" -- who sometimes talks with our students.

He's an atheist, of course.

I went over and introduced myself and sat down.

He had no idea what to expect from this stranger from Minnesota. Nor was I quite sure what I was getting into.

But after a few minutes of dishing up Kant and Hume with some Descartes on the side, we were off and running.

Two observations after a lively hour of discussion:

1. Scattered: Atheist Professor (AP) lacks an organizing center. His views are patchwork.

2. Defining moment for AP: came not simply through philosophical speculation but by "losing" a female friend to Christianity when they were both teenagers. Subsequently, his reading of a Billy Graham book "gave me no guidance for becoming a better person. It was all about conversion."

I'd like to be friends with AP. I found him to be engaging and enjoyable as we traded polemics regarding faith, ethics and the existence of God.

But for Christians there is something more important in this encounter than rational case-making. And that is . . . our manner.

Would the Christian -- me, in this case -- care for AP through careful listening and respectful body language (i.e, my manner)?

Would I truly hear AP's defining moment above all the philosophy-chatter?

And would the aging intellectual come to trust a Christian again after losing faith in us 50 years ago?

This May Make You Envious

2011-11-21T09:38:00.000-06:00

A couple of years ago I joined a theological discussion group that is one of the best, ever.

Let's just call it TP.

Guess what happened?

The friendships in TP grew so rich, the humor so hilarious, the fellowship so sweet, the discussions so penetrating, that we expanded by 25%.

We went from three people to four.

One is Catholic. One is Episcopalian. One is Covenant. And one is a generic evangelical.

We're not looking for new members.

When I describe the group to other friends, they look at me with longing and envy.

Seems many of us desire to be in a fraternity where we are deeply loved and deeply challenged. Where the level of honesty and transparency trumps the superficiality that often passes for Christian community.

Granted, TP is an unusual group.

But your TP is out there, waiting to happen. You may need to quit something else (maybe five other things) to get your group going.

Try starting with just one other person. And in that regard I have a simple suggestion:

Choose wisely.

A We Thing

2011-11-12T22:22:00.000-06:00

I've always thought of myself as having something to offer the ministry profession.

Lately I'm reconsidering that thought. I'm changing it to what WE have to offer the ministry profession.

Who is "we"?

We is the people who send me out there to do God's work.

I recently talked with a successful person in the marketplace who is producing a lot of service, but without much input in his life.

He's feeling thin. Spiritually skinny.

My point is that I got nuttin'.

I got nothing to offer students on college campuses or my cussing golf buddies or the Sunday school class that I teach or my pastor when I meet with him or the young couples without church homes that I counsel and whose weddings I officiate.

Quality input generates quality output. It's a communal thing. It's a we thing.

Some of you are part of my we. Thank you for that. Thank you for your input.

But lack of input leaves us powerless to effect change or make a difference in people's lives.

How's your input quotient these days? How's the we factor?

Doing Less

2011-11-06T20:32:00.002-06:00

In recent years I've become more interested in doing less.

But doing things better.

Quality grows. Quality is a magnet for new talent. Quality succeeds, reproduces, becomes all the envy.

To illustrate, there's a certain team of five guys at my church that does awesome work. But they don't let just anyone join the team. You have to show yourself approved -- that is, you have to demonstrate that you possess the requisite gifting, discipline, motivation and teachability.

It's a pretty exclusive group. And highly attractive.

I want in.

My System for Loving God

2011-10-30T23:31:00.000-05:00

Spend a few days with me and you'll find out I am a systematic person.

Not naturally, however. Not like Sharon Mattson, who just automatically does things in order.

No, all my systems are constructed. And I follow them religiously. Otherwise, I pay the price, as does everyone in my path: anarchy followed closely by chaos.

So a hard question for me is, What is my "system" for loving God?

Not thinking rightly about God. Not fulfilling my vocation in ministry for God. But loving God.

In the Bible I find that loving God has a lot to do with transparency, repentance and obedience.

It's also about having a sensitive and soft heart toward God.

I recently wrote this in my journal:

"Do I regularly repent and believe, or is Christian faith, for me, merely a system (or metasystem) for 'doing life well,' the ultimate utility?"

Fellow systematizers, beware.

On Going to Church Twice a Month

2011-10-23T22:33:00.000-05:00

You have no idea of the temptations I face Sunday mornings, especially in the summer.

In the few weeks of pleasant weather Minnesota affords in this season, it is vitally important that I squeeze in all the golf I can.

Because soon I'll be back in jail: Minnesota winter.

Plus, most of the golf I play at my club involves outreach to some salty characters who could use a good dose of Jesus in their lives. I love these guys and feel called to them. Often.

So that leaves me with about two Sundays/month for church attendance between May and October. And that's not even factoring in excursions out of town with family and friends.

But wait a second. There's actually a different way to do church, different from what I've said above.

And that is to place it at the head of the line -- the top of the priority list -- before golf and all the other distractions which I so easily justify.

This prioritizing is what Sharon and I have tried to do.

Not that we never miss church. We do, on occasion.

But worship and fellowship with God's people -- with "our" God's people, where we find our sense of Christian identity and place of service -- is indispensable for the Christian life. We cannot live (properly) without it.

I have no interest in turning this principle into a legality.

But the spirit of the thing, the spirit of active participation, of being there -- yes, even of some sense of duty (an old fashioned word that I hope will make a comeback), is what really counts.

I hope to see you in the house of God this weekend.

Steady as She Goes

2011-10-16T23:23:00.000-05:00

My friend Gary and I were talking the other day about the value of being steady.

As a businessman, Gary has seen many of the young ones attempt to make their millions overnight. They flash impressively for short sprints but have no endurance for the long run.

Contrast that with my buddy Jeff, who's been in ministry at a large university for decades.

No one would accuse Jeff of being flashy.

Rather, he is humble, consistent, understated . . . and, most importantly: effective. He's pushing 60 and still delivers the goods. His restrained newsletters seem to under-sell the ministry while still celebrating God's work.

I wish to emulate Jeff.

Friends, which will it be for us: Fast and flashy? Or faithful and steady?

Sprinter or marathoner?

The Law Requires. . .

2011-10-11T12:38:00.000-05:00

I'd like to share with you one of my primary internal commands (command to self):

Rick, you are supposed to be busy, productive, responsible and well-rounded.

These aspirations require that I run pretty fast in life.

Why do I do it?

The answer is not hard to find. But it is hard to admit: I must accomplish all these things in order to fulfill the law and be justified.

If you are a New Testament believer, you'll find this sort of justification, when it is named in such an obvious way, off-putting.

So do I.

Yet, the desire to fulfill the law, whether that of Mt. Sinai or another source, can be overwhelming.

My spiritual director, Wayne, often asks me why I do things. He doesn't show a lot of concern for the things themselves. He's fine with my being a motivated, productive person.

He just wants to know what drives me. . . .

It's an on-going conversation. :)

I find this verse to be quite liberating: "We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit" (Rom 7:6).

Perhaps this verse will be an encouragement to you as well, fellow laborers.

freebibleillustrations.com

See you in a few weeks

2011-08-14T20:04:00.000-05:00

Responding to Atheism with Strength . . . or Weakness?

2011-08-08T01:03:00.003-05:00

The Portable Atheist features an essay by Emma Goldman, a Russian-born "anarchist" who was deported from the US in 1919.

She writes,

The God idea express[es] a sort of spiritualistic stimulus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness.

Atheists often paint belief in God as weakness:

Weakness of heart in that we lack the courage to face the harsh realities of the natural world.

Weakness of mind in that we cannot think for ourselves but must invent a deity to worship who then spoon-feeds us the answers to life.

A proper response for evangelicals?

One approach is to demonstrate the strength of evangelical fortitude and intellect. Challenge atheist assumptions, find chinks in their armor, stand strong.

The other is to admit our faults, agree that we are weak, and demonstrate that broken people can find healing and serve productively in society with the help of Jesus.

The first approach is modernist and is likely to feel natural to Christian baby boomers and older, like myself.

The second approach is more postmodern and would be adopted easily by young people (and others young of heart).

My suggestion is simple: Be who you are.

Generally, atheists are modernistic and tend to respect clear thinking and firm foundations. If you can articulate your case against atheism and for theism, go for it. Sure, be respectful. But be steadfast and "rock-solid."

But if you are not philosophically inclined, just be yourself. Be your authentic, loving, praying, funny, forgiven, somewhat-together self.

OR, do I dare write this. Yes, why not:

Do both. Be strong and weak.

Be linear, clear, incisive, logical (if you can).

But also be vulnerable. Show your weakness, for that is where power is perfected.

When you are both weak and strong you'll have summarized in yourself the life and ministry of Jesus, who was limited to flesh and bones, murdered by mere mortals, but resurrected in kingly dominion.

Atheism part 8 (give or take): Reason vs. Superstition

2011-08-02T01:13:00.000-05:00

One of my atheist friends accuses me of looking at the arguments for and against God from a biased standpoint, that is, through rose-colored glasses.

He thinks I presuppose God before the arguments are in. Such presupposing is called "begging the question," a known logical fallacy.

He further insists that if I were to examine the evidence and arguments from a neutral, unbiased viewpoint, I'd see that there are no good reasons to believe in God.

Note that unbiased is a demarcation word, a semantic blade that severs the wide-eyed believer from rational (unbiased) modern man.

Cool reason thus keeps its distance from blind faith.

But two can play at this game.

I ask my friend for some criteria that, if met, would guarantee that his judgements are neutral and objective.

In response, my friend provides a series of "criteria for belief." One is this, which I shall call "X":

We should always keep in the front of our minds a demand for compelling evidence in support of any claim or assertion.

But of course X itself is a claim for which we should demand "compelling evidence."

So I am not so impressed with my friend's call for objectivity. It's a much tougher ideal to attain than he thinks.

Neither should you be impressed with the cold confidence of your cousin or nephew or next-door neighbor who's newly declared himself an atheist in order to take up the fight of "unbiased" reason against religious superstition.

Fideism Considered. (If you don't know what "fideism" is, now's your chance!)

2011-07-25T08:16:00.000-05:00

Continuing our discussion from last week, fideism is the claim that belief comes before reason, that one cannot "think" rightly about God until one has made a faith commitment to God.

For many atheists, this whole approach of believing without evidence is a head-scratcher.

They think, Why would you just dive in like that? What if you're wrong? How can you force yourself to believe if you really don't? And what about evidence that seems contrary to your position -- you just ignore it all? Bury your head in the sand?

Fideism tends to reinforce for the atheist the old saying by Mark Twain:

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

My opinion (since this is in fact my blog :) ??

I think fideism is misguided, especially in its strong forms.

I remember sitting with the Free Thinker's Club at a university in California a few months ago. They tried to make me admit that I believe in God without any evidence or reasons for doing so.

So when I gave them my evidence and reasons, and actually considered their contrary arguments, they responded much like the Athenian philosophers of Acts 17:

We want to hear you again on this subject.

Friends, atheists are made in the image of God. Many are sincerely concerned about finding truth. Right there is your common ground, a basis for dialog.

We may not be able to provide perfect arguments for God's existence and our belief in Jesus. But that doesn't mean we have no arguments at all. In fact, we have some darn good ones.

And it is these arguments along with the confident but humble manner in which we present ourselves that may gain a hearing from our atheist friends and opponents.

Atheism part 6 (approximately): Fideism

2011-07-18T16:09:00.002-05:00

One of my favorite Christian philosophers is C. Stephen Evans. He is sophisticated yet accessible to thinking lay people.

In his Philosophy of Religion, co-authored with R. Zachary Manis, he contrasts two opposing approaches to faith: neutralism and fideism.

In the fideistic way, believing tends to come before critical thinking.

There is no stepping back in order to rationally evaluate the arguments for and against God.

Rather, you simply believe in God. You commit yourself. You step out in faith.

It's only after this step of faith is made that you can think rightly about God, because now you're standing on the proper ground.

Any supposed "neutral" posture toward God is actually a state of rebellion.

Generally, fideism drives atheists nuts.

They ask, "Why do you believe?"

You reply, "You just have to have faith."

But then, "Faith in what?"

"Faith in Christ."

"Why Christ? Why not the Buddha?"

"Because Christ is true."

"How do you know that?"

"I know it from experience. You'd know it too, if you just had faith."

"You're driving me crazy. I'll never make a blind leap of faith like that."

"Blind? This is the clearest vision I've ever had in my life."

Dear readers, what do you think of fideism? Since I am out of space I'll comment next week -- and introduce neutralism.

Faith Expanded

2011-07-10T22:45:00.003-05:00

A few years ago, noted author James Sire visited Macalester College in St. Paul where I was working (and have, this past year, returned) and made this statement to a group of students gathered in a dorm lounge:

"Faith is much more than logical. But it is not less."

He went on to say that Christian faith also entails (in addition to logic) emotion, commitment and volition. As a Christian you are embracing a person -- that is, God, not merely a religious proposition or the idea of God.

So while I share with atheists a kind of generic philosophical faith in the probabilities of certain things, (see my last two posts), this further step of committing myself to the Lord Jesus is more similar to a marriage than to a syllogism.

Faith is thus relational.

I say all this to atheists. A few of them get what I mean, others not so much.

Evidence and Religious Faith

2011-07-04T10:55:00.000-05:00

Secular Student Alliance leader and myself panel-discussing
atheism and Christianity at Winona State University.

Atheists and Christians often disagree about the nature of religious faith.

One group says faith is blind, a leap in the dark, definitely not based on evidence.

The other says faith is sighted, a leap in the light, supported by much evidence.

Which is it?

I think you can only describe your own experience and the experience of like-minded people. In my own case, faith is the result of critical reflection on arguments and empirical evidence.

When my atheist friends tell me that faith is blind and not based on evidence, they presuppose a universal definition of faith.

(And if Rick Mattson would only look up the word "faith" in the universal dictionary, he'd discover that faith, by definition, cannot be based on evidence. But of course no such dictionary exists.)

My reply to the atheist is this:

I do not hold to your definition of faith, nor am I obligated to do so. My faith is based largely on critical reflection of arguments and empirical evidence.

In a recent public debate with an atheist friend, I made the simple request that he not impose his definition of faith on me.

You should make the same request of your atheist friends.

At this point you may be thinking to yourself that the faith I describe above comes off a bit cold and calculating. Shouldn't there be something more to it? What about emotion? Attitude? Commitment?

Tune in next week.

Atheism Part 3: Two-stage Faith

2011-06-27T08:27:00.004-05:00

Christians often accuse atheists of having more faith than Christians.

This is off-putting to atheists because they think of faith as believing without any evidence. Or believing contrary to evidence.

In other words, faith is blind.

Here is a two-stage definition of faith that I've found helpful in my discussions with atheists:

Step 1: Generic trust based on evidence.

Example: In the years leading up to 2007, both Christians and atheists drove their vehicles over the I35W bridge in Minneapolis. We trusted the engineers, the inspectors -- the whole "system" -- that built and maintained the bridge.

And we observed thousands of other vehicles successfully traversing the bridge.

Our conclusion: Venture out! Trust the steel trusses and concrete with your very life.

Christians and atheists had a ton of evidence the bridge was safe. But not proof.

In 2007 the bridge collapsed, killing 13 people.

In summary, step 1 faith is choosing to believe something based on evidence that stops short of proof.

Step 2: Personal trust and commitment. This is my faith in Jesus.

Now here's the point. As a Christian I have evidence (but not proof) that a biblical worldview is true. That's step 1, and it's pretty much the same as trusting the bridge.

Step 1 faith is what I have in common with atheists. I choose a generic kind of faith based on evidence.

But when it comes to religion, what really counts as evidence? Atheists and Christians disagree here.

I'll discuss it next week.

See you next week

2011-06-20T22:09:00.000-05:00

Atheists and Faith

2011-06-13T09:15:00.001-05:00

Recently I had the privilege of engaging in an informal discussion with an atheist student ("Matt") in front of a class at a prominent local high school.

After the class period, Matt said to me that he wished he and I could come to an agreement on the definition of faith.

Timeout.

I've always enjoyed the company of atheists. I seem to click with them.

But they can be sneaky on this question of faith.

Their definition of faith is believing without any evidence, and they tend to impose this definition on me.

But my definition is believing because of the evidence.

So what do you think? Should I go with the atheist definition (Matt's), or with my own definition and experience of faith?

That's easy. It's my faith. I can define it however I choose (that is, from within my theological tradition).

Folks, Christian philosophers remind us that we are under no moral or intellectual obligation to play by atheist rules in our discussions.

I think it unlikely that Matt and I could settle on a common definition of faith.

After all, by my definition, he has as much faith as I do.

Atheists Big and LIttle

2011-06-05T23:11:00.003-05:00

In my travels I interact with many atheists.

Generally, there are two levels:

1. The Big Boys: professional philosophers who bring a sophisticated product to the table.

A sampling of names: William Rowe, J.L. Mackie, Quentin Smith, Kai Neilsen, the early Antony Flew.

Thoughtful Christians should read their books and essays, and interact with their arguments. They force us, quite helpfully, to elevate the quality of our apologetic.

2. The Pretenders: the "new" atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Lots of rhetoric here, not much philosophical substance.

Many devotees of the new atheists are not aware of their own professionals. Rather, they parrot the dismissive tones (and sense of victimhood) of the Pretenders.

One can hear their harsh tones at school and office.

If you've been confronted by a disciple of the Pretenders, I'd like to assure you that it's mostly bluster.

My advice is to ask questions, show love and respect, find out what they really think -- and why. Don't get into a verbal shoving match.

At some point your manner will open a door for witness.

See you next week

2011-05-29T21:04:00.000-05:00

New topic next week: atheism

Evoke

2011-05-22T21:43:00.001-05:00

note: this post is longer than my usual one-minute special. Worth the read, I hope. :)

If you read my post from last week you'll see that high school and college students have a lot of questions about God and faith, but there's one catch:

They don't know what their questions are.

Wait, there's a second catch:

Even if they're aware of their questions, they're not likely to talk about them very easily.

Part of the problem is that evangelical culture is not conducive to questioning.

A culture that is truly conducive to questioning doesn't give answers impatiently. Rather, it provides an extended process for working through issues, gives multiple sides of the story, suggests possible solutions, involves students in the process of reasoning and research and challenging and deciding.

In short, a healthy "questioning" environment does the one thing that evangelicals find almost impossible to do: refrain from giving answers.

Seems counter-intuitive, I know. But if we want students to truly embrace their own faith (rather than their parents' faith), we have to ease up a little, stop "telling" them what to believe.

Here's an approach I have practiced many times on the topic of religious pluralism:

I figure almost every evangelical student (and their nonChristian friends) have questioned the claim that Christ is the only true pathway to God, while all the other religions are supposedly false.

But if I take on that issue directly, it won't stick.

But it might stick if I work through an interactive process of discovery.

So I draw a proposal on the board from John Hick, the world's most famous religious pluralist. Hick's proposal, roughly speaking, is that the "Real" (god) revealed itself to all the world's major religions, each getting a slice of the pie.

Differences in the religions can be attributed to the different cultural contexts in which each revelation was received. There's more to it than that, but I'll move on for brevity's sake.

After I draw (and explain) a diagram similar to the one at the right, I simply ask students, "This is Hick's proposal. What's kind of cool about it? And what's screwy about it? You tell me."

Then we go at it hard for about 45 minutes.

Students poke and ponder, speculate and critique. If they get stuck, I give them another piece of information so they can move ahead.

Eventually they start to see that Hick's proposal doesn't hang together. The cracks and flaws become evident.

And students themselves start to articulate the problems.

There's your golden moment, right there.

Now, for the very first time, I am in position to do a little teaching. My job is to affirm what they've discovered, then take it just beyond their horizon.

They got us 90% of the way to our destination. Hopefully I can add the last 10% that they could never come up with.

But friends, please hear this: If I try to do 90% of the work, most of the time students can't even carry that last 10%. And probably, they did not buy my 90.

The moral of the story: Don't tell, ask. Don't declare, prompt.

Teach at the end, not the beginning. That's the only time they can hear us.

Student-speak

2011-05-15T15:24:00.002-05:00

Me trying to say something helpful to college students at Cedar Campus, MI

Every year for about two weeks in May I spend more time with college students than my usual high dosage.

And it always comes just when I'm being released from winter-time prison in MN, so it's a little tough on my golf game.

But holy cow, them students gots tons a questions.

Questions about ministry and theology, and of course about their personal lives. In fact, these three topics run together and overlap with each other so much that half the time I don't know if I am acting as pastor, counselor, or theologian.

Nor does it matter, I guess.

Folks, NOW HEAR THIS: The church must find ways to engage the questions of their high school and college students. They are starving for answers.

But here's the tough part: They don't appear to be that curious.

Just try asking them what their questions are. They won't respond. They won't tell you.

Why?

Because they don't know what their questions are.

That means the sensitive evangelist or discipler must know how to evoke their questions, draw them out, get them talking. That's the art in all this.

Students are more interested in the great questions (and the small ones) than they think they are.

So how do we draw them out?

Next week I'll unveil the grand secret.

Or maybe it will just be a meek suggestion :)

The Time Diet

2011-05-08T15:46:00.000-05:00

Assumption #1: If I don’t plan my time I will drift.

Assumption #2: My wisest moments happen in advance – that is, during the planning phase of life.

When I skip planning and just ad lib “in the moment,” things fall apart. I make bad decisions on the fly.

Note: I married a person (Sharon) who is naturally organized inside her own head. She goes from one thing to the next, efficiently, without getting sidetracked.

Not me.

Thus, I present to you: The Time Diet.

It’s how I cut the fat from my schedule and actually do what I’m supposed to be doing (well, mostly):

Step 1: Make a list of all the things I need to do in the next few months. This is a rolling list that I update every day.

Step 2: Choose the things I must do this week and write them into my calendar.

Step 3: Choose the things I must do today and make a detailed schedule of my time for the day, including:

When I will start and stop each task.
Exact time I must leave for appointments. Otherwise, I'll be late, guaranteed.
Fudge time. Add some extra time here and there for interruptions.
Rest and fun. Can’t work all the time!

If I get off track, I re-write the schedule for the rest of the day, and move an item into tomorrow.

If I have big tasks, I make an appointment with myself at an exact time this week to get it done. Example: Wednesday 3-5pm, create proposal.

The whole thing seems a little crazy, eh? A little extreme?

That’s because I’m crazy and extreme.

I don’t have the gift of internal organization. Rather, I’ve got the gift of daydreaming -- the floaties.

The Time Diet helps me lead a more balanced life . . .

. . . and maybe even clean the bathrooms on occasion for Sharon, who feels the love vibe from her husband through acts of service.

That reminds me: Sunday 9pm, scrub shower stall.

The Drifter

2011-05-01T16:30:00.001-05:00

I'm a drifter.

No, not a vagabond. Different kind of drifter: I daydream, float, meander.

If you know me fairly well this might surprise you. Outwardly, I appear highly organized -- maybe even "focused."

But if you know me beyond "fairly," to REALLY well, you know that my head is in the clouds most of the time.

Yes, I can tell you what I read on page 37 of a philosophy book ten years ago. Just don't ask me where my car keys are. Or where I left my new track jacket.

The magic solution to my severe case of the floats?

Systems.

Systems don't seem very spiritual to some, but in my case they're my only hope for showing up at my appointment with you at the correct coffee shop on the correct date, maybe even arriving five minutes early.

Furthermore, systems are my only hope for telling Sharon, my wife, that I love her. Yeah, I confess, I actually create a plan for taking out the recycling and fixing the mower and maintaining the vehicle. Sharon "hears" these chores as true love.

Highly motivating for me.

What's my system? Next week I'll tell you. If you're a bit of an airhead like yours truly, I think you'll be blessed.

Professor of the Year Speaks Wisdom

2011-04-24T21:14:00.000-05:00

Lendol Calder is a professor of history at Augustana College, Rock Island, IL., and the "professor of the year" in the state of Illinois.

His observation about students:

“Students today are like adventure tourists walking through a jungle,” says Lendol.

“‘Nothing here but trees and grass,’ says the student while their guide shouts ‘Look! There’s a tiger in the grass!’

Except that young people today don’t have guides. They have iPods, they have cable TV, they have each other. But no real guides.

We may be the first society in human history to create a cultural environment in which the young are turned loose in the world without benefit of the wisdom of elders telling them how to find a vocation, how to find a mate, how to make love last.

Cut off from adults and entombed in their peer culture, they are expected to make maps of their own. No wonder they don’t have time to read and prepare for class. They’re too busy trying to figure out how life works.”

from InterVarsity alumni news: Lendol Calder

My response: Students are hungry for wisdom and guidance.

HOWEVER: You have to earn their trust, first. That takes some doing.

Up in the Air

2011-04-18T17:30:00.002-05:00

Jen said in a roundabout way that maybe she'd join me for lunch in one of O'Hare's many eateries.

Chicago's O'Hare airport: my new friend. We've spent a lot of quality time together this past year.

Now it appeared a third party was inserting herself into our relationship.

Jen had plopped her luggage and computer bag across the aisle from me at the terminal gate, and started talking. Talking rough. Expletives laced her sarcastic tone, especially when referencing a former husband.

Eventually she learned what I do for work. That always changes things.

Tough girl went sincere, cuss words evaporated.

I was beginning to enjoy this. She was, say, five years younger than me. The conversation picked up.

After a few minutes a stunning realization gradually came to my dull consciousness. I fought it off. It couldn't be true.

Call me slow afoot. Asleep at the wheel, surprised. I simply do not think of myself as a prospect for --

OK, three lessons learned for a married person such as myself:

1. Keep the ring finger exposed and glistening. But don't count on it as a sure-fire deterrent (it isn't).

2. Don't underestimate the human drive for intimacy and security, either in yourself or that person sitting across the aisle.

3. Eat alone. I did.

A Simple Suggestion

2011-04-10T23:38:00.000-05:00

My current job takes me around the country to many ministry venues on college campuses and churches.

An observation from my travels:

Keep it simple.

Comparing the ministries that are moving ahead with those that aren't, the growers keep it simple while the dwindlers keep it not-really-very-simple.

The growers develop leaders around a compelling, incisive vision.

Dwindlers muddle along organically with whatever people "God provides."

Growers NEVER reward dysfunctional people and systems by propping them up or dancing around them.

Dwindlers tap dance in fear of the 800lb gorillas who have seized (or fallen into) power in their ministry.

The G's wait until they're doing a couple things really well before adding a third. Their stuff is thoughtful, compelling.

The D's, by contrast, "empower" people to do whatever ministry activity they feel led to do. Their stuff is spread out, disconnected.

G's pay the price to develop a culture of evaluation and accountability.

D's don't dare.

So let's say I visit two ministries. The first is crisp, simple, thoughtful, prayed up. 65 minutes fly by. I hang out afterward for a cup of coffee.

The second is kinda sloppy. Wrong people up front. Music is a C-. 88 minutes aggravate my squirm threshold. Afterward, I bolt for the door.

To which ministry will I return next week?

Last in the series: The Modern, Postmodern University, part 7: reaching the modern student with a postmodern veneer

2011-04-03T19:06:00.000-05:00

I've talked the past few weeks about reaching

Postmodern students: with trust
Modern students: with logic
Modern students with a postmodern veneer: with trust and logic

Now this week, the postmodern student with a modern veneer.

This is the student who's firm on the outside, soft inside. Like an egg.

First, connect with that firm, logical exterior by appealing to reason. I say something like this:

"I'm a fellow truth seeker. I want to know the truth just like you do. Let's talk together and learn from each other."

Secondly, when you discover the squishy postmodern stuff underneath, you have two choices:

a. Back off on the logic and work to establish trust through shared experiences. OR

b. Address the philosophical quicksand on which the postmodern view rests.

It depends on the person. I'd suggest going with "a" above -- shared experiences.

If you get philosophical too quickly, s/he will just say, "Whatever. That's your deal, not mine."

Thirdly, Start moving in two directions. The first direction is into that person's community, where you incarnate yourself in the manner of Jesus.

The other direction is that you invite the person into your community.

But here's the thing: What you invite them to needs to be a hospitable environment for a postmodern person.

To my thinking, when the kingdom of God is functioning fully, it is HH:

Highly Hospitable.

Unfortunately, often it is CC:

Closed Community.

Friends, let's open our communities to the stranger and alien among us -- in this case the postmodern person who appears modern on the outside.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 6: reaching the modern student with a postmodern veneer

2011-03-28T08:54:00.000-05:00

To summarize and catch you up on this series so far (skip this section if you wish):

A postmodern student thinks nobody has a monopoly on the truth.
A modern student believes that through critical reason one can arrive at the truth.
A modern student with a postmodern veneer: see below.
A postmodern student with a modern veneer is the person who at first seems to believe in one ultimate truth, but really doesn't. I'll talk about how to reach this student next week.

Start reading here: The modern student with a postmodern veneer is the most common of the four profiles that I encounter on campus. This person is, so to speak, soft on the outside and firm on the inside.

Step one: Establish Trust.

You can't skip this step and go right for case-making. First you gotta connect. Ask about their life and share a bit of yours. Show that you care, or you'll never get past the surface.

Another way to say this is to start with the heart, then move to the head.

Step 2: Make your case.

Here's where your apologetics and appeals to the mind kick in. Don't forget to illustrate your case with concrete stories, images and diagrams. I use a lot of diagrams.

Step 3: Circle back.

Circle back to the heart. Be transparent, work on the relationship, provide cool experiences, build community.

So, in order to reach this most common of the four profiles, remember to create an environment of trust, community and shared experience.

Inside -- I repeat, inside -- this environment you make your case for faith in Christ.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 5: a critical pause.

2011-03-19T21:24:00.000-05:00

In this multi-part series, we're talking about how to reach out with the message of Christ to four student profiles:

The truly postmodern student (March 6 post).
The truly modern student (March 13 post).
The modern student with a postmodern veneer (next week).
The postmodern student with a modern veneer (likely in two weeks).

But now I want to pause and say that in my many travels to college campuses, I can tell when I'm entering into a situation that is all prayed up:

Dorm lounges, student unions, quads and classrooms feel like sacred space, as if God is walking in the cool of the garden around campus.

I am convinced that we won't reach any of the four profiles unless we plant the garden of prayer.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 4: Reaching Moderns

2011-03-12T22:55:00.001-06:00

I'll be hanging with these Bemidji State crazies all of next week

This is week four on the topic of reaching today's young people with the message of Jesus. See prior posts dated Feb 20, 28, Mar 6.

Last week: reaching postmodern students.
This week: reaching modern students.

Step One with modern students: Show yourself a player.

That is, show that you care about being reasonable and rational. I heard one of my mentors, Jim Sire,* state in a public talk awhile back that faith is never less than logical.

Yes, it's much more than logical. It involves commitment, passion, risk.

But it's never illogical. That stuck with me.

So I try to establish early on that, like many young atheists, I care about the rational process of arriving at truth.

Step Two: Admit fallibility.

Amazingly, this step is tough for many evangelicals.

Actually, all I am saying is that while God is perfect, I am not. God makes judgments without error, I do not.

If I were infallible rather than fallible, I'd be God.

Admitting my fallibility to young "free thinkers" makes them think I am actually listening to them--actually open to their perspective.

Which I am.

Step Three: Love.

Whereas with postmodern students the relational part comes first, with modern students it comes last.

(Yes, I'm exaggerating. In real life it varies from student to student.)

Most modern students care about truth, science, rational method. So connect with them on that level first. Show yourself a player there.

Then at some point step 3 kicks in: You draw them into experiences of the kingdom. Not even hard-headed, cynical atheists can say no to genuine expressions of Christ's love.

OK, some can.

But not usually.

* Dr. James Sire, author of The Universe Next Door and a lot of other excellent books.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 3: Reaching Postmoderns

2011-03-06T20:48:00.000-06:00

For explanations of the four student profiles we are discussing, see the past two weeks' posts.

This week: What does it take to reach the truly postmodern student?

Three steps:

1. Connect. You MUST establish trust. I'm talking personal, heart-felt, self-disclosing trust; traveler-to-traveler bonding, shared human experience.

But take it slow. Don't look like you're in a hurry.

Think we-ness.

Not us and them, or us versus them (traditional evangelical categories).

Rather, "we" are in a life boat together. We are trying to survive. We are trying to make a life, figure things out, have a few laughs along the way.

2. Go into their world and affirm whatever you can.

If you're 45 and older, learn to chill and hang out (If you're 35 and under you already know how to do this).

Tell your story and listen to theirs. Incarnate yourself just as Jesus did.

Then invite them into your world, and at some point into your ministry context.

But remember, most evangelical ministry settings will be a cross-cultural experience for postmoderns. So you'll have to explain things to them as well as offer some excellent (but casual) hospitality, or they won't be back.

3. Optional third step: Question. Bring up the fact that if if everyone merely has their own perspective on things, and there's no ultimate truth, then I can do whatever I wish to other people, with impunity. After all, my actions, good or bad, merely flow from my perspective.

Like I said, that last step is optional. Some postmoderns don't care about such things.

I walked through step three with my friend G, awhile back. He was quite startled when he realized the implications of his deep relativism. So in some cases the conversation is worthwhile.

Next week: reaching the modern student.

Suggested resource: I Once Was Lost (five thresholds of postmodern conversion), by Everts and Schaupp. Best book on evangelism I've read in a long time.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 2

2011-02-28T00:08:00.000-06:00

See last week's post for part 1 of this series.

"Postmodernism" (PM) took American universities by storm in the 1980s and 90s. When I arrived at Macalester College (St. Paul, MN) as the InterVarsity campus staff in 1992, PM hit me full in the face.

Gone were objective truth, autonomous reason, caucasian triumph.

Present were subjective truths, politicized reason, and cultural diversity.

Last week I mentioned how it has taken evangelicals 20 years to come to grips with this sea change. We're finally getting it.

Alas, think again.

The most prevalent type of undergrad student (by far) I encounter in my many travels is not the truly PM person, but this:

Student profile #3: PM veneer, modern underneath.

Yeah, it's complicated. By bathing in the direct PM sunlight their entire formative years, students absorb much from their environment.

But it's only skin deep, a suntan. When you get past the outer layer, they seem to bear a striking resemblance to moderns of the past. They want rational answers to their questions.

Careful, though. Don't assume you can skip past that tawny exterior. Failure to account for it will crash the conversation.

Student profile #4: Modern exterior, PM underneath.

Rare, but it's out there. This student appears at first to engage in rational discussion of a reality to which we both subscribe. But soon, squishy PM stuff derails the conversation into troubled waters -- or quicksand; pick your image.

Next week: We'll begin connecting the gospel message with the four profiles.

Note that definitions of PM and Modernism vary. My use of "Modernism" is rather generic and is probably more in line with the word "Enlightenment." Wikipedia has some nice articles on Postmodernism and the Enlightenment. In old fashion hard copy, I'd suggest Stan Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism.

The Modern, Postmodern University, part 1

2011-02-20T21:06:00.001-06:00

I travel a lot. Over 25 college campuses, the past few months.

People ask me what I'm learning about students.

This:

Student profile #1: Postmodern all the way through.

You may be surprised to know that in the so-called "postmodern" university the truly postmodern student is fairly rare. That is, the student who thinks there is no overarching truth at all, but only competing stories and "versions" of reality, is a famous but ultimately phantom figure.

Though scarce in number, postmoderns have become the target profile to whom we evangelicals have finally adjusted our ministry sites, now twenty years after their first explosive appearance.

Student profile #2: Modern all the way through.

This student never really went away, but was considered passe for a decade or more as campus and pop culture embraced personal--that is, non-institutional--spirituality.

But such ungrounded spirituality was bound to falter after a season.

Believe me when I tell you the young modernist has stormed back into prominence. Following "new" atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, he's a hard-headed, common sense pragmatist.

And like his mentors just mentioned, he can be aggressive and derisive. Unfortunately, he seems quite able to bait Christians into following suit.

***********************

Next week I'll cover two more student profiles, including the one I encounter most (by far).

Later, I'll outline a strategy for reaching all four profiles.

In the Slot

2011-02-13T21:59:00.000-06:00

I stood in front of a bunch of college students the other night in Duluth and told them to stay in the church and work for reform.

See, when you're young and a little cynical, the temptation to ditch the church and just do the Jesus thing by yourself is pretty strong.

But consider: An ancient church father named Cyprian famously declared that there is no salvation outside the church.

Maybe Cyprian was a little extreme, but in my view he leans in the proper direction. After all:

The church is God's only plan for saving the world.

The option of skipping church and just growing in Christ on our own isn't really open to us, biblically speaking.

Here's something that could make church participation more appealing to those on the sidelines:

Find your slot.

By "slot" I mean finding what you love doing and are really good at; then -- get in there and dig.

My slot(s) at Grace Church Roseville:

Tunes: Once or twice/month I make the big commitment (about seven hours' worth) to play in the worship band. FYI: At 53 I am still a young rocker!

Sermon prep: My buddy Jim and I serve as Pastor Jason's advisors for sermon prep. As a trio we study the passages together and determine preaching themes. We have awesome discussions.

Service assessments: My given assignment is to "write up" the Sunday service from beginning to end -- every minute, every inch. Then I email the assessment to the pastoral team. I am supportive, constructive in my comments.

Those jobs play into my strengths, passions and sense of team.

Are you doing what you love at your church? Doing what you're good at? Serving the body of Christ?

Tell us your story.

In and Out

2011-02-07T00:51:00.000-06:00

Consider the following pattern:

www.freeimages.co.uk

Teenager: heavily involved in church youth group. On fire for Jesus!
College age and early 20s person: drops out of church, grows cynical, apathetic.

Late 20s: He/she realizes need for grounding, brings new spouse and toddler to church twice/month.

Age 30: A dramatic fork in the road distinguishes in-group from out-group:

The outs remain on the fringe of the church. They take what they can but give little. Nominalism sets in.
The ins find warm fellowship, dive into the deep end, make a commitment to a local body of believers.

30s and 40s: The ins commit huge time to church work and wonder at those who opt out.

40s and 50s: The ins start to fade once again, feel burned out.

50s and 60s: The former ins sit on the sidelines, feel they've done their share, go to the cabin a lot, switch to being outs.

70s and beyond: The outs upgrade to more regular church attendance in order to encourage grandkids, but have little personal investment.

Of course, many Christians defy the above pattern and are faithful to the church their whole lives. This I applaud.

But for the fickle masses, church seems to be just this: optional. I suppose we can blame it on individualism, self-determination, maybe just laziness.

But we cannot blame it on the Bible.

We're told in Ephesians 5 and other places that the church is the bride of Christ.

That means we Christians are married, spiritually speaking.

What does that mean for the outs?

Mystery Fire part 2

2011-01-30T23:05:00.008-06:00

This is the conclusion to last week's story about a mystery fire in my neighborhood. See the post below for part 1.

The fire crew finds no flames inside Ann's house, no over-heated walls, no smoke. Nothing.

Finally, after poking the three-story patient with several sharp surgical instruments and taking her temperature multiple times, they slide the biggest truck in the fleet neatly into curb-side position, and crank the extension ladder up over the chimney to take a peek down the steel pipe.

Empty.

"Could'a been a bird's nest in there that fired up every time the heater kicked in," the chief observes out loud.

I wince a little and ask if it had been right to call the department at all.

"Absolutely," he replies.

And that was it.

Many times since that day I've looked out my picture window to try and catch a repeat performance of furnace gas transfigured by sun splash. It ought to look like a flag of flame up there atop Ann's roof.

But every time: nothing more than white exhaust floating on the wind, maybe with a dash of pink, at most. Certainly not. . . "FIRE!"

* * *

The lesson: I acted on what I believed to be true. I had no proof, but I did have evidence that something was wrong at Ann's house--and my observation was corroborated by my wife Sharon.

Foolproof? Infallible? Absolute certainty--is that what Sharon and I had?

No way. But we had enough to go on. And as it turned out, in this case we may have been wrong--I still don't know.

For our atheist friends and acquaintances who wait around for proof before believing in anything, I'd fear for Ann's life.

It seems to me we have a lot of evidence that the Christian faith is true. But the evidence falls short of proof. Let's just admit that.

Still, we've got enough to go on--enough reason to pick up the phone and call the Fire Department.

Enough reason to believe.

Mystery Fire part 1

2011-01-23T10:13:00.000-06:00

See that chimney atop my neighbor's house? There's a mystery associated with it.

One day in Dec. I'm sitting in my comfy chair looking out my front window when something glittery catches my eye. I look up and see what appears to be a reddish/orange flame streaming out of the extension pipe of Ann's chimney.

Ann is a lovely, elderly woman who lives alone in that three-story edifice.

Thing is, the flame is intermittent. It seems to sync itself with the on-off cycle of a typical furnace in a Minnesota winter. Furnace on: red blaze. Furnace off: zippo.

One more factor. A spectacular pink sunset is framing the house from behind.

I call for backup.

Sharon agrees with me. Fire.

Not some trick of Mother Nature. Not harmless white exhaust seen through the rose-colored glasses of a splashy sunset. Nope, definitely fire.

I phone the fire dept and explain everything. I'm being overly cautious, hesitant. It's only intermittent I keep saying. The sunset. . .

The dispatcher cuts me off. "We'll be right there."

"But. . . "

Seven minutes later there's five giant red trucks with hoses and ladders protruding like tentacles, overrunning my Lilliputian neighborhood. Four guys in heavy fire gear, wielding axes, march into Ann's front entrance, while another eight of their comrades (and I) observe from the street.

In a moment of shameful weakness I secretly hope they find something . . .

Meanwhile, the crew chief questions me. Seems like he's been down this road before. He probes my story from different angles, rubs his chin--not quite a skeptic, not quite a believer.

And of course the big candle atop Ann's house had been extinguished five minutes before the Invasion, when we pulled her out of the place, shut off the furnace, and watched the fireworks on the horizon fade into gray.

* * *

Next week: the end of the story--and a spiritual angle to consider.

Love Your Enemies, or Not

2011-01-16T15:18:00.002-06:00

Tuesday night I found myself unexpectedly $49 and two cab fares lighter in the wallet as I spent the night at the Chicago O'Hare Motel 6, waiting out a snow storm.

You know the drill: cancel-cancel-delay-delay-cancel. Now it's 11:30pm.

Earlier, about 10pm, with the snow falling outside and tempers flaring around O'Hare, a boarding ramp closed on the last flite to Denver, just as it's supposed to, about ten minutes before liftoff.

Two minutes later, breathless Middle-Aged White Professional rushed in and insisted the ramp be re-opened for him. Arab Gate Attendant, maybe 28 years old, politely refused.

You can guess the result. MAWP berates and shouts down AGA like an abusive husband. I guess his logic is that closing the gate on time as instructed by the airline and TSA should be blamed on AGA.

Shoot the messenger.

I was proud of AGA. He handled it like a pro. He didn't cower, cave or even fight back. He simply stood his ground. The gate was definitely closed.

Similar to MAWP, many of us church people think little of firing off a gruff word or tirade at employees in restaurants, gas stations, public transit.

Yet, they are made in the image of God. Our chance to be different than the secular public awaits us each time we go face to face with a sales clerk.

Moving on

2011-01-09T15:09:00.001-06:00

Five of my elder relatives and friends moved on the past two years.

What does it mean?

I'm richer for their lives, poorer for their deaths.

Dr. Russell Arndts was among the travelers. He departed July 23.

In his retirement years I sat on the couch opposite his easy chair many times to debate biblical theology with the former chemistry professor, while soaking in the famous Betty Arndts hospitality.

Nor did it stop there. You should see our email logs.

Now a resident of the Next Life, my elder friend has presumably discovered the truth: Mattson was right all along.

Or wrong.

In one sense it doesn't matter.

I'd give a lot to resume the toe-to-toe scrapping with my friend, not in his current State--I can wait awhile for that--but in the familiar St. Cloud setting: fireplace, Diet Pepsi, leaning into my point, up in the man's face, he in mine.

We relished not merely debate, but friendship. He'd smile at me and half-apologize for his intensity but I'd wave him off. I knew he cared for me as much as correct theology, which is saying a lot.

Russ, save me a spot on the Couch. The next chapter of our talks will undoubtedly stretch on interminably.

Readers: Do we have good friends these days that challenge us? Debate with us. . . and still love us? Tell us your story.

Great Expectations

2011-01-02T21:37:00.000-06:00

An acquaintance promised to call me back but never did. Again.

People let me down. They let you down as well.

How do we respond?

For me, differently than 20 years ago (or even ten years ago). This is middle age speaking right now, so beware.

Some of the best advice I ever received was to lower my expectations of others. So when they let me down I don't have as far to fall.

If you don't read my blog or if you forget my birthday or leave me off your party guest list or miss a coffee appointment with me or neglect to show your appreciation after I've shoveled your walk or if you just plain leave me holding the bag. . . .

. . . I'm not saying it doesn't affect me at all. What I'm saying is that as a young man I thought I was entitled to these duties and courtesies from you. These days, not so much.

By the way, this lowering expectations thing--I think it's biblical. Not to over-spiritualize, but the person I expect a lot from is not you, but me. Christ calls me to love you. Your love of me is your business, not mine. If you give it, I'll gladly receive it! But I'm not holding my breathe.

A lot of it gets down to this: Which would I rather be most of the time, disappointed? or pleasantly surprised? That's an easy choice for me.

By the way, lowering expectations works well with movies and restaurants as well. Try it.

The Crown Jewel

2010-12-26T21:32:00.000-06:00

Recently I hung out with a lively group of Christian art students at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL).

Art and discourse near the shores of Lake Michigan

I was swept away in a vigorous two-hour conversation with them over a lovely dinner. Why I get to have all the fun, I cannot explain.

Their main concern?

Art just doesn't seem that important to evangelical Christians (exceptions: scrapbooking and music). Beauty is merely frosting on the cake, playing no integral role in our spirituality.

We could, I suppose, write off their complaint as the typical grousing of "misunderstood" artists.

But that would be a mistake.

Art, whether beautiful or arresting, "needs no justification," as Hans Rookmaaker famously said. That is, we should be creative because God is creative. We should love beauty and poetry and music because we are made in the very image of God.

But for many evangelicals, decades of preoccupation with conservative social issues and "practical" approaches to ministry have crowded out any appreciation for art. . . and thereby crowded out something of our essential humanity, I would argue.

My hope is that we do not crowd out these young NU artists and their kind. If empowered, they could help transform our physical environs--and our core spirituality--into sacred, crown jewels.

The effect on those outside the kingdom?

I believe they'd be drawn all the more to (and in some cases, repelled more violently from) the Beautiful Savior, Lord of the Nations.

Mattson family Christmas letter 2010

2010-12-18T18:04:00.000-06:00

http://ricksnewsletters.blogspot.com/

Blind Spots

2010-12-11T23:40:00.007-06:00

As I've gotten older my vision and spiritual intuition seem to have gotten sharper. In fact, I might be able to give you some helpful counsel, if you ask.

The one person I can't figure out, however, is myself. Me, no get.

Think about it: By definition I can't see my own blind spots. Yet, I know they're there. I know something needs attention. I know I need your counsel if I'm to navigate my way through the next stretch of tricky waters--whatever they turn out to be.

It seems to me some people don't know they have blind spots. And they'd probably be devastated if someone told them. I guess mostly we don't tell them, do we.

Socrates admitted his blind spots, and was rewarded for it. The Oracle at Delphi called him the wisest man in the world, because he admitted what he didn't know. He didn't think himself wise.

As we come to each other as colleagues, friends, co-workers, family, may we regard ourselves as teachable. You're able to see my stuff, I'm able to see yours. It's our own stuff--hiding like a vehicle just beyond the range of our side mirrors--that we can't see.

Guacamole Vision

2010-12-04T22:58:00.000-06:00

Recently I had lunch with the senior pastor of a church in the "top-100" fastest growing churches in America.

The scope of the church's ministry is impressive--multiple campuses, dozens of missionaries, hundreds coming to faith in Christ.

After chatting for a few minutes at the restaurant, some really serious chips 'n guac arrived at our table, so I figured it was time to ask a tough question.

I was wondering whether he is perceived as an empire builder, and what criticism he faces for it. After all, people can't resist reading the worst motives into a "successful" Christian leader, and shooting him/her down for it in the name of God.

"Yeah, all the time," he said dryly. Like, of course.

"How do you reply to your critics?"

"That's easy. I have a one word answer: Hell."

"Say more."

"I believe in a real place called 'Hell.' And I believe that unless people place their faith in Jesus Christ as their savior, they will go to Hell."

"So. . ."

"So that motivates me big time. I'll do whatever it takes, within Biblical norms, to reach lost people. I'll raise money, build buildings, preach sermons, create fantastic youth ministry space [see my post from last week], start new churches, take over dying churches. . . ."

There was fire in his eyes, urgency in his voice. He layed out a big vision, then asked me to come and do an event at the church.

I was in before the green guac was gone.

Friends, the power of vision--consistent, persistent, dynamic vision--is unstoppable.

Cool. Meaningful.

2010-11-28T18:11:00.001-06:00

I had the great privilege of teaching adult ed. at a large church in the south metro (Twin Cities) this semester. On the last Sunday of the series, I spoke from the heart. Here's a chunk of my heart for youth ministry:

1. Church should be cool. It should be fun to come here. You should have a great youth ministry space (they do, actually), loaded to the gills with lights and guitars and games and a sound system. Spend your money here. It will pay dividends to the whole church.

2. But it can't be all toys and pizza and craziness. You gotta deliver content as well.

It has to be both. How many times have I heard adult Christians all over the country complain that there is no substance in their church's youth ministry? 4,293. Approximately.

Yet, don't knock the fun stuff, if you want kids to show up at all. What's better--50 kids in the building, off the streets, having fun, with a chance to grow? Or seven nerds going "deep" with the Lord?

And if we find creative ways to deliver content and engage kids with the gospel of Jesus, maybe they won't check out so fast when they leave high school. Maybe when they're 19 they'll swing by a college campus ministry such as the one I work for.

Myself--I look UP to youth pastors! They are amazing. I love them. I couldn't do what they do. But mostly, the quality of youth ministry at your church and mine is up to us church leaders. WE are the ones who can "set up" the youth ministry. . . or set it down.

My question to you: How's youth ministry going at your church? Is it fun? Spiritually meaningful?

a few good ideas are here: http://www.ehow.com/list_6156169_church-youth-room-decorating-ideas.html

And the Answer Is. . .

2010-11-21T21:09:00.003-06:00

The Ganfield Library Cafe is not exactly spacious, with a max occupancy of maybe 30 or 35 (behind the windows, right).

Last Friday morning our discussion group, configured in a tight oval around two small wooden tables, occupied 13 of those spots.

The topic at hand: Was Christina's friend who had converted from Christianity to Islam still in possession of her salvation? The friend had once been a "true" Christian, supposedly. Now, a confessor of the shahada.

12 Carroll University students looked to me to settle the matter.

My job at that moment was to provide the answer, of course. Probably start by saying "The Bible clearly teaches. . . "

Or, I could draw them deeper into the issue by asking them to consider the pros and cons of various solutions.

It seems to me that one of the reasons young people are leaving the church in record numbers is that we tell them a lot of answers. We rob them of the joy of discovery.

Meanwhile, at school and in other spiritualities (or in atheism), they get to talk freely about their doubts, concerns, opinions. Often a new and exciting conversation for young (former) evangelicals.

Back to the coffee shop at Carroll: Eventually, after a lot more dialog, I did give my view of the matter, though not as the answer.

How's the Conversation going at your church/ministry/home?

p.s. The November 2010 issue of Christianity Today has an insightful article about young people leaving the church, entitled The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church. It's also posted on line, though you may need a subscription: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/27.40.html?start=1

Release and Catch

2010-11-14T21:16:00.000-06:00

Recently I went fishing with my buddy M, a middle-aged entrepreneur who runs a successful small business.

At one point M's phone rings at the same time a little walleye hits his jig and minnow.

He takes the call.

It's a former employee chatting it up about his new job. No big deal, right?

Turns out it was a guy M had fired. "You're kidding," I said, screwing up my face.

"Nope. He wasn't getting the job done."

"But he's calling you now to shoot the breeze?"

"I felt terrible letting him go, but I knew it was the right move. I gave him a positive recommendation for a certain type of work that I know he can do well. I just didn't have that kind of work for him. He was calling to thank me."

Note to self: I've supervised a lot of people over the years. And I've made the hard calls, the tough personnel moves. But I wonder whether it was always done with M's spirit of love and compassion for the employee, which in truth is Jesus' spirit of love and compassion.

M landed the walleye, which is now at rest in my freezer.

A Theology of Business?

2010-11-07T22:24:00.005-06:00

The Lord has given me the excellent privilege of hanging out with a lot of business people.

How does the church support them in the marketplace?

It seems to me we speak on the front end and the back end of business spirituality, but not much in the middle.

Front end: We teach about acting ethically and how to reach out to colleagues.

Back end: We teach about stewardship of wealth.

In the middle, however, we're not really sure how money is made, nor do we always care to know. Just so the stewardship stuff eventually happens.

What would a theology of business look like?

Assuming the Lord Jesus is interested in business practice as a thing in itself, and not only character and witness (front end), and giving (back end), I offer these categories for starters:

A theology of the marketplace: competition, opportunity, investment.
A theology of personnel: supervision, development, and "natural" talents (we know what to do with spiritual gifts, but not natural talents).
A theology of profit, ambition, and social consciousness.
A theology of business leadership and teamwork.

Integrating evangelical spirituality into the fabric of these practices would take some serious constructive theology. I wonder who's doing this kind of work?

Regal in Chicago

2010-10-31T23:12:00.000-05:00

This morning I attended a traditional worship service in Chicago with some good friends.

Upon entering the sanctuary I was greeted with an 11-piece french horn ensemble playing two numbers with booming, moving parts.

Pastors were in robes. Long passages of scripture were read (well). And the robed choir sang a fine piece from sacred literature.

The elderly minister spoke eloquently about religious pluralism, reminding us that the American tendency to dismiss religious differences is actually a devaluation of each faith tradition. "We do Jews no favor," he said, "when we tell them that the distinctives of their faith don't matter. Of course they matter."

The implication: Actual beliefs of individual religions need to be taken seriously, not glossed over for the sake of false harmony.

I sang "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" with my eyes closed, from memory, with the horns lifting the fourth and final verse into flight: "That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them abideth . . ."

I've been on the road a lot lately, and I miss my church. Grace Church Roseville is contemporary and relevant. People are meeting Jesus there and learning to love him. Families are being transformed.

But today in Chicago God touched my heart through a different style, a different flavor, a different approach to things.

Question: Are you and I flexible enough to appreciate both old and new? Traditional and contemporary?

Option Three

2010-10-24T18:33:00.002-05:00

K telling me his faith story

I find that many of the college students I visit with around the country don't know why they believe in the Bible and Jesus.

I guess they formed these beliefs on the authority of parents and pastors, but few students can articulate any other reasons for their faith.

The result is that they tend to shield their religious life from the critique of the university. Either that or expose their beliefs and get slaughtered.

There is both a third and a fourth option, however. I favor the third: Integrate your faith and studies, which of course means owning your faith in a deep sense and having reasons to back it up.

The fourth option isn't much good: Possess a kind of "blind faith" that, despite resistance on campus, blazes forward in strident, ignorant glory, causing much offense while taking solace in being persecuted for the Cause.

Back to option three--integration. This means inviting Jesus into every class, paper, exam and relationship. A small percentage of students I've worked with in collegiate ministry over the years (29 years, to be exact) come equipped out of high school with this mindset.

Evangelicals should be good at this integration. How could we improve?

Think about it. . .

2010-10-17T16:10:00.006-05:00

College students are more interested in thinking than they think they are.

For evangelical students, the subculture in which they've been raised tends to be strong on worship, devotion, service, maybe even outreach.

The missing piece? Biblical/theological grounding.

Families, youth ministries and collegiate ministries do a grave injustice to students when we withhold such grounding. We assume young people are not interested. We say to ourselves, "A.D.D. video game culture trumps theology any day. Why fight it?"

But what if we made Bible study interesting? What if theology and apologetics were made relevant?

Here's the hard part. My generation (and older) has trouble separating theological teaching from a certain form of delivery: lecture.

No wonder students are bored.

But if students are, in fact, more interested in thinking than they (and we) think they are, we need to rehab our delivery system and make scripture and theology. . . engaging.

Yeah, I'm saying the problem is as much our fault as theirs. Folks, I can tell you from personal experience that they (students) are ready to roll. But are we?

Speaking "Up"

2010-10-11T08:08:00.000-05:00

Four letter words fly around the golf course where I play like hundreds of errant tee shots.

A river of strong drink disappears into men's guts.

Sometimes they ask me on the 10th hole what I do for work. "I'm in the ministry," I say. "I travel around the country and tell college students about Jesus."

This usually causes massive apologies for all that took place the prior two hours.

No matter. I love these guys. And as much as I "speak up" to them about what I believe, I catch myself, at times, speaking down to them, condescendingly.

Rather, I wish to speak "up" from a posture of service and humility. Or minimally, speak across the table, man to man. This is the way of Christ.

Out with the Old, in with the Old

2010-10-03T20:43:00.000-05:00

When I was young I was a rebel and a radical.

Now I'm a radical. Or at least I aspire to be so.

The rebel in me went the way of James Dean--dead and buried.

The reason?

I never had a cause. Well, except to establish myself as a rebel. I suppose my friends and colleagues saw through this thin motivation, but I never did, not in my younger days.

Radical, on the other hand, remains a noble aspiration for me in middle age. I wish to emulate the radical Jesus who knifed through religious and social strictures to establish the kingdom of God in our midst.

Goodbye rebel. Hello radical.

Would you care to join me?

The Contrarian

2010-09-26T20:13:00.000-05:00

According to Conventional Wisdom, there's a set of practices and disciplines to which we all must submit. They are mandatory. No exceptions.

A short list:

Sabbath rest
Accountability
Prayer and Bible study
Local church involvement
Boundaries on visual inputs
Boundaries with the opposite sex

But I'm a contrarian. I work seven days a week because that's what separates the men from the boys.

Nor do I need anyone sticking their nose in my personal business.

I can slide by prayerlessly for days with no discernible difference. As for church involvement, it's overrated--I get plenty of spiritual input from Christian radio and websites.

Yeah, I carry on a little "double life" action around the margins, but no big deal in the grand scheme of things. A man does what he's got to do.

Fact is, I'm unique. I know better than Conventional Wisdom.

How about you?

See you Sept 27

2010-09-21T08:26:00.002-05:00

Mentor on Race

2010-09-12T23:15:00.000-05:00

Twice in the past year I've spoken publicly on the issue of race. Both times I was shaking in my boots.

Why?

Fear of offending minority audiences by saying the wrong thing.
Fear of offending white evangelicals by calling them out.
No expertise. Why listen to me? I'm a dang rookie in racial reconciliation stuff.

I need a mentor.

Pastor Warren Carey of Tree of Life Church in Minneapolis has agreed to serve me in this way. I'm getting an education, believe me.

The big Question: Do I actually want this education? Deep in the well of my most basic motivations, I'm not sure I do.

But of course that's exactly why I'm meeting with Warren.

He's gracious with me, and patient.

In return, I'm helping Warren. . . at the golf range.

Mentor Me

2010-09-06T08:03:00.000-05:00

In my wisest moments I know what I don't know.

In my sanest moments I know I need help.

Ergo: recruit three mentors.

Mentor #1: Wayne Thyren (TreeHouse Youth Outeach). How he mentors me: Spiritual Director. I have asked him to tell me the naked truth about myself. He has obliged for the past 15 years.

Mentor #2: David Clark (pictured right), Bethel University. How he mentors me: Theology, philosophy. He helps me interpret the big boys (Kant, Hume, Plato. . . it's a long list) and TRANSLATE for students and faculty.

Without mentors I tend to, well, drift.

Who are your mentors? How do they help? What mentor is missing for you right now?

Next week: My new, exciting mentor #3.

Paying a High Cost

2010-08-30T09:03:00.002-05:00

An old friend stopped returning my phone calls.

My intuition, which is accurate 3/4 of the time, tells me that my clumsy attempts to represent Christ to my old friend finally put him off.

Perhaps had I been more straight-forward -- a known quantity, things would be different.

Perhaps had I been more sensitive -- not forcing the conversation, we'd still be talking.

I don't know.

What I do know is that being rejected -- in this case with no explanation -- is tough to swallow. And the other thing I know is that if you and I choose to represent Christ with our lives (imperfectly, to be sure) we will, at times, pay a steep price.

Tongue Unleashed

2010-08-22T22:59:00.000-05:00

My life-long friends Kathe and Dave led me in a very specific prayer recently as we cruised in my 2004 Ford Explorer along a country road:

Lord, use us.

Yes, I'm an evangelist/apologist. I'm trained, skilled, etc. YET, it's shocking to me how often my fragile ego puts a gag order on my tongue, insisting that Now's not the time to share Christ. You'll come off as pushy. You'll turn people off. Take more time to love before blurting out something ill-timed and stupid.

Lord, use us.

That day I talked with five people about faith in five separate conversations. Tongue loosed.

Yesterday on the 11th tee box it happened again. My buddy was joking about heaven and hell so I took a chance: But how're you going to GET to heaven, Joe?

He said something about treating people well, and I gave him my most skeptical look. Then we were off to the races, gospel-speaking.

It's a simple prayer: Lord, use me. Use us.

Will you pray that prayer with Kathe, Dave and me this week?

Coming and Going

2010-08-15T22:22:00.000-05:00

An impressionable college student from the Midwest attended the 1979 Urbana Mission Convention, and that student was me.

I was fortunate to have a talk at the convention with the Rev. Billy Graham in which he looked directly at me and uttered these words, and I paraphrase: The scriptural pattern for God's servants has two directions--coming and going. First we come to God in prayer and worship, and then we go out from God in witness to a fallen world. . .

Nailing the point into my conscience from that evening forward, Mr. Graham made a welcoming gesture with his hands, beckoning me to "Come to God." Then his hawk-like features intensified as he gathered himself and shot his arms abruptly outward, commanding me to "Go forth in Jesus' name."

"Come. Go. Come! GO!! COME!!! GOOOOH," he thundered.

Sure, maybe the other 16,624 delegates in the auditorium overheard our conversation, which I admit was rather one-sided, Mr. Graham being at the podium and I in row 103. No matter. I say he was talking to me.

Friends, will you join me in this pattern of "coming and going," this week? Will you make time for prayer and worship, and then will you share the message of God's love with at least one other person?

I welcome your comments.

Psalm 130 to the Rescue

2010-08-08T21:17:00.000-05:00

As mentioned last week, I've been setting the stopwatch on my cell phone most mornings for thirty minutes of worship and intercession. I wish I could say this comes easily for me, being in the ministry and all, but I can't.

Jim Sire has helped me. With instruction from his fine book, Learning to Pray through the Psalms, I've committed Psalm 130 to memory and often employ its incisive words to guide my prayers:

Out of the depths I cry to you, O LORD;
O Lord, hear my voice.

Let your ears be attentive
to my cry for mercy

The "depths" to which the Psalmist refers are probably his own encompassing sin.

Geesh, I can relate.

Folks, we can "pray" this Psalm along with the ancient poet of 3000 years ago, submitting our faults to the Lord, pleading for his mercy. Will you join me in this prayer?

30 Holy Minutes

2010-08-01T22:16:00.001-05:00

One of my friends spends 30 minutes/day in intercessory prayer. Through his example I've been challenged to do the same.

That was two months ago.

How's it going so far? I'm inconsistent, and when I do sit down before the Lord my mind easily wanders. Yet, I'm beginning to WANT to be there...

Would you care to join me on this adventure?

Others are way ahead of me as intercessors; I'm totally a novice. Still, if I may offer these suggestions:

Start small, maybe with 10-15 minutes/day. Then gradually build up to longer periods.
I always set my stopwatch for the time I've committed. Otherwise, I don't have the discipline to follow through. It sounds unspiritual, I know.
Use a Bible. How? I'll talk about this next week.

Your comments are welcome as always. Perhaps you'd share some of your own struggles/ideas/breakthroughs on the topic of intercession, as an encouragement to our readers.

See you in August

2010-06-28T08:11:00.000-05:00

Hi folks, My blog has more readership than I ever expected. Thanks for your support!

In August I'll resume posting.

The Acid Test

2010-06-21T01:04:00.001-05:00

Here’s why I think “midreach” (speaking to Christians and nonChristians at the same time—see my last three posts below) is so profound:

It revives the idea that public speaking (or interactive presentation) is a true art form—carefully crafted, thoroughly prayed over.
It is audience-centered. It takes account of who’s listening as the speech act is designed.
It tends to avoid (or explain) Christian lingo.
It takes the Bible out of the purely “religious” sphere and places it squarely in the pathway of people’s everyday lives, whether they are Christian or not.

Here’s the acid test: If you attend a presentation or listen to a sermon and you receive something valuable for your own development AND you wish your nonChristian friend were present, you probably just witnessed some good midreach.

On the other hand, if you went away saying, “Whew, good thing Amy (or whomever) didn’t show up today. . . “, well, most of us have thought that a few times.

In my view, doing quality midreach is vital for collegiate ministry (where I work). How about in your ministry/church?

Teaching an early Creed

2010-06-13T18:46:00.000-05:00

Apologists often point to 1 Cor 15:3-4 as an early creed that was in use among Christians shortly after the resurrection of Jesus (within 2-5 years).

You may remember that the text speaks of Christ's atoning death, his resurrection and appearances to the twelve.

If the creed goes back as far as we think, it works AGAINST the argument of critics that Jesus as “Son of God,” miracle worker, risen Lord, was invented by the church in subsequent decades. . .

Stop there. Let’s say I’m presenting something like the above material to a youth ministry or collegiate fellowship that is comprised of both Christian (“C”) and nonChristian (“NC”) students, as I regularly do.

The “midreach” approach I’ve been discussing for three weeks aims to give something of value to both C and NC at the same time. And if the crowd is tilted a little more toward one or the other, I wouldn’t adjust much.

In my view, both C and NC students will come to trust this kind of teaching (assuming age-appropriate material) if, over time, they are learning something new that matters to their life.

And eventually they will bring their friends.

Question for you: Could some form of midreach be a helpful approach at your church/ministry?

Next week: my list of descriptors for what I consider to be powerful midreach.

Midreach part 2

2010-06-05T21:06:00.000-05:00

Here is an example of what I call “midreach” (see last week’s post for more context):

The gospel writer Mark presents Jesus to his audience in a way that hardly distinguishes between believers and non-believers.

Believers can find comfort in a series of healings and exorcisms in the first few chapters:

Ch 1: Simon’s mother-in-law and a leper are healed.

Ch 2: A paralytic is forgiven and healed.

Ch 3: A man with a shriveled hand is healed on the Sabbath.

Ch 5: The Gerasene demoniac is cleansed of his demons.

Ch 5: A bleeding woman is healed and Jairus’s daughter is raised from the dead.

Non-believers learn about Jesus’ power, authority and compassion in these same stories.

So Mark is building up the faith of those who already possess it, and making his case for Jesus to those who don’t.

All at the same time.

In my view, Mark is a master at midreach. What can we learn from his example?

Midreach

2010-05-31T22:30:00.000-05:00

“Inreach” is fairly well defined in my mind as ministry that seeks to bring believers to spiritual maturity.

“Outreach” is also fixed in my thinking as ministry that extends the gospel to the surrounding community and nations.

What I’m trying to figure out, however, is “midreach.”

Thus far, I’ve come up with this: Midreach is both. It’s communicating Biblical ideas in a way that is compelling to both Christians and nonChristians (and those on the fence).

As I struggle to define and master the art of midreach (in the context of college campus ministry), I’d love to hear your thoughts and suggestions.

p.s., descriptive words would be more helpful to me than sending me links—thanks.

Jesus outside the box

2010-05-23T21:27:00.000-05:00

These days I am writing my own commentary on the gospel of Mark.

Am I finding fresh meanings in Mark? Writing something never before written?

Not really.

Scholars have been conducting a weighty conversation about the NT for the past 2000 years, and I’m simply joining in the fun. It would be quite dangerous to swerve outside the lines of this tradition.

Despite drawing on professional resources for my study, Jesus cannot be circumscribed. He continues to amaze me, baffle me, and exceed (or contradict) my expectations.

He often doesn’t do what he’s "supposed" to do, which makes me think I'm missing something.

Sponsoring Downward, Outward

2010-05-16T20:35:00.003-05:00

I have a radical idea. It’s not going to apply in every situation—I realize that.

But here it is: Church is not really for me.

Don’t get me wrong. I am HIGHLY committed to Grace Church Roseville.

What I’m saying, however, is that my job as a 50-something is not so much to receive as it is to give. Sharon and I give a lot of time and money to GCR, but we don’t expect the church to cater to our tastes, style, preferences, needs.

GCR must—absolutely must—reach out to the community. That means sermons aren’t going to “feed” me every week. Christian education is not going to be aimed precisely at me. Women’s ministries are not going to be a bullseye for Sharon. Music styles may not cater to our preferences.

Two implications of what I’m suggesting:

1) At middle age, Sharon and I should be capable of nourishing ourselves spiritually from the word of God. Yes, I listen closely to the fine sermons at GCR and I try to obey what I hear. But I don’t expect Pastor Jason (pictured above) to have me primarily in mind when he preaches.

2) I’m no longer a guest at GCR. On the contrary, I’m a host, a sponsor. My job is to help our church connect with young generations and new people. When stuff is aimed at me, I figure we’re missing the mark.

Folks, I’m not trying to be a martyr here. I’m just saying the church must constantly renew itself or risk losing its Great Commission.

Your thoughts?

Adaptability

2010-05-10T14:14:00.001-05:00

In his excellent book, The Rise of Evangelicalism, historian Mark Knoll (Wheaton College) portrays the early evangelical movement of 18th century Europe and colonial America as entrepreneurial, adaptable, revivalist, experiential. . . radical.

This in contrast to the “creaking mechanisms” of established state religion.

Knoll observes: “By setting aside earlier religious forms, the evangelicals did not think they were setting aside the faith once delivered, but rather adjusting it to the new social realities of the age” (p149).

I have a feeling I'd have liked these guys: Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Wesley.

Knoll's account of their ministries is quite enlightening, and I'd recommend the book to you.

Tradition or Change?

2010-05-02T19:21:00.001-05:00

My friend R is more conservative than me. My good buddy P is more Catholic than me (right, since I’m Protestant).

In lengthy discussions with both this past year, a critical issue has arisen—though from different angles: the place of tradition.

Each friend in his own way is telling me that church tradition keeps us from wandering outside the boundaries of the church historic—that is, outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

I get that part (they may dispute that☺).

My reply is that one of the best things evangelicals bring to the table is flexibility in method. We can do things differently than we did yesterday in order to meet today’s ministry needs. We’re highly adaptable.

Example: I am a supporter of changing worship styles (music, order of service, electric/acoustic, graphics, architecture, lighting, décor, readings, liturgy, etc) to put worship into the “heart” language of various segments of a congregation: old, young, ethnic, etc.

Which way do you lean:

Preserve tradition? Or:

Make changes for local contexts? Or:

A little of both?

p.s. My friend L lives in country music territory. He thinks his church should consider a country music styled service. OK, I happen to like that idea. . .

The New Apologetic

2010-04-26T09:08:00.001-05:00

Last week at Sonoma State University (CA) three “apologetics” converged like streams to a river:

1. The Free Thinkers group pressed me with questions such as “Are miracles rational?” and “Why does God never heal an amputee?”

They wanted evidence, even proof, of God—“classic” apologetics.

2. The InterVarsity group provided me with a different kind of proof of God’s presence: the embodied apologetic of love and hospitality.

Rationalists, don’t sneer. These days the best argument for the truth of Christianity on college campuses is the Holy Spirit supernaturalizing the community of faith.

3. My GLBT seminar. The current generation’s first impulse is to include, not exclude. What does this mean regarding gays and lesbians? Hopefully, I helped 25 young leaders think it through.

Stream #1 above represents modernism. It’s what I grew up on.

Streams 2 and 3 are more postmodern approaches to apologetics. They’re about relationships, power and political agendas.

Think of your church. Which kind of apologetic does it offer? Which is needed?

I invite your comments.

Toast in the chapel

2010-04-19T09:29:00.002-05:00

Get this: One day I show up for chapel in the gorgeous theater at North Central University* to hang with my son, Ryan, who studies music at the school.

“Who’s leading worship today, buddy boy?” I ask.

“One Accord.”

“They any good?”

He just grins at his senile father.

Five minutes later OA begins playing in front of 600 peers and professors, appearing demure and casual and unimpressed with their own celebrity. The songs have no dramatic modulations or big endings. There are no “inspirational” solos, no heavenly smiles.

Sandi Patty and Steve Green this isn’t.

By the second tune, I’m toast. I’m taken down, captured, disarmed, humbled. OA is too good, too attuned, too understated, too mature musically and spiritually for me to resist, nor do I want to.

Curiously, all the musicians seem to be watching something as they play—something they assume is happening in the theater which is beyond their control.

I finally see it too: The Lord walking among his people.

*****

After chapel I bump into music professor Dave Pedde who coaches OA. Late 20s, gelled hair, piercings?

Nope. Dave’s about my age, silver mane, pianist.

Two things stand out to me about OA:

1. How astonishingly well coached they are.

2. How little their music/look/feel (the whole package) resembles their coach’s generation.

Think about how tough this is to pull off. Boomer-run institution sponsors boomer coach who trains—but then releases young people to do their thing in their own way, for their peers.

I find this very gutsy.

Does your church have the courage to do the same?

I invite your comments.

* North Central University is located in Minneapolis, associated with the Assemblies of God denomination.

A Titanic Change

2010-04-12T09:36:00.004-05:00

In his excellent book, Emerging Hope, Jimmy Long reminds us that the young generations in America represent a shift from Enlightenment modernism to postmodernism.

In Long’s view (and mine), this is a change of titanic proportions.

It means, among other things, that “Those who think that in due time [young people] will ‘grow up’ and look like everyone else should prepare to have unfulfilled expectations.” (UnChristian, p22)

I believe those of us 45 and older can slip into denial quite easily about the identity of the new generation. We think they’re pretty much like us—aside from the tattoos and iPads.

Perhaps we’d rather not think that the arduous sweat equity that went into establishing the evangelical flag the past 50 years will be wasted on our children and grandchildren.

All that hard work! It can give us a sense of entitlement. It can blind us to the changing realities of a new day, a new audience, a new calling.

I believe the new calling is to bridge the gap between old and young, modern and postmodern, traditional and contemporary. Thing is, we have to realize that THIS particular gap is not traversed by walking across the room. More like flying to another planet.

I invite your comments.

Radical Divergence

2010-04-05T00:50:00.002-05:00

If you’re 45 years of age and up (like me), I have news for you: The younger generation of evangelicals is not going to learn our ways and grow into maturity to look like us. They’re never going to get it, as we define “it.”

They’re not going to take over our (white) churches like sons and daughters assuming the reigns of a family business and run things like we have.

They’re not going to start dressing up for Sunday services or tuck in their shirts or sign up for a lot of committee work or revive the old hymns (at least not in the old forms).

They’re not going to fight the same battles that divided their parents’ churches on issues such as charismatic gifts, women’s roles, eschatology, and the social gospel. They’re into inclusion, not drawing lines in the sand.

They value vulnerability, personal stories and admissions of imperfection. The bigger-than-life man of God who reigns sovereignly over a local parish, who preaches with doubt-defeating conviction and shows no weakness, will not be impressive to them.

But the leader who shares from the heart and speaks across the table rather than downward from a pedestal, will connect. . .
------------
I could say so much more. Another time.

But WHY the radical changes? What’s driving the new thinking? The new methods?

You tell me.

•   If you’re 35 and under, tell us what’s going on. Us old-sters need to hear from you.

•   If you’re 45 and up, what are your thoughts about the younger generation?

•   If you’re 35-45, which way do you lean—younger or older? Why?

I’ll share my own thoughts on the subject next week.

The Camel's Nose

2010-03-28T21:25:00.011-05:00

My friend Dr. Bob Osburn at the University of MN http://www.wilberforceacademy.org/ notes how the arrival of postmodernity actually creates space for Christians on campus in a backwards sort of way:

“There is little doubt that postmodernism has been the camel’s nose under the tent, and, thus, alternative, nontraditional worldviews like Christianity have found a place to enter and engage the academic conversation.”

In other words, every group on campus is supposed to have a place at the table to speak. Even Christians.

A fabulous opportunity for us!

But wait a second. Many of our sharpest students are not sitting at the table at all. Instead, they’re attending Christian colleges (including my son).

Question: Do you think the church has a vision for reaching the secular university? If so, are we willing to send our best and brightest students there as missionaries?

Do it with Style

2010-03-21T22:28:00.001-05:00

I’m trying to confuse you. Last week’s post was a “never happens” dialog between Modern and Postmodern, that happens (implicitly) all the time.

Hopefully, you were not happy with either side.

Moderns tend to be overly impressed with their own knowledge and institutions. Let’s not get stuck there.

Postmoderns sometimes fall into cynicism and relativism. That’s no good either.

My suggestion? If your church wants to grow by reaching people 35 and under, you have to go postmodern STYLISTICALLY. Skip the cynicism and relativism but work toward these changes:

Focus on community, personal experience, interactive learning, stories and modeling transparent spirituality.
Preach more in the gospels, Acts, Psalms and OT narratives.

SO, if you're 45 and up, join me in trying to show some stylistic flexibility.

If you're 35 and under, you already get it. Postmodern style comes naturally to you.

If you're 35-45, you'll be in power, soon, in your church (if you aren't already). Stylistically, which way will you go?

Pomo vs. Mo

2010-03-14T22:58:00.001-05:00

A hackneyed, stock conversation in the anthropology dept between Postmodern and Modern that never actually occurs. Except everyday.

Pomo: You “Mo’s” have been running the show for 400 years, and we’re going to put an end to it.

Mo: What do you mean?

Pomo: It started with your European claims to know absolute truth. Then you forced yourselves on MANY native cultures. It’s called colonialism. Ever heard of it?

Mo: Wait a second. I admit, abuses took place. But most were carried out by European governments and their armies, not by Christians. There’s a difference between the true followers of Jesus and those who use religion to oppress others.

Pomo: Don’t deny your own history, Mo. If you’re saying that the political motivation to expand, to colonialize, to force-feed religion on other cultures didn’t come from the church historic, which included many sincere believers, where did it come from?

Mo: Before you impose your understanding of history on me too forcefully, Pomo, you should know that there are now more Christians in the developing world than in the west.

Pomo: So the end justifies the means? I suppose the next thing you’ll say is that God is the one who gave you this country. Damages along the way were merely “collateral.”

Mo: Unfortunately, we don’t agree among ourselves on this point right now, so we’re not prepared to give an answer.

Pomo: That’s what I thought.

Mo: Don’t get too smug with me, Pomo. You’ve made a HUGE mistake yourself: You’ve become a relativist. Ironically, relativism ultimately means, “anything goes.” And if anything goes, even colonialism would be acceptable.

Pomo: I never said anything goes. I believe we should respect and be tolerant of all human beings!

Mo: Except Christians.

Pomo: They don’t deserve respect. They’ve dominated for centuries. Now it’s time to take away their power and re-distribute it to the powerless.

Mo: That’s what’s maddening about you. You don’t bother to make a strong argument against my position—probably because you can’t. You simply run me over, all the while spouting off about “respect."

Pomo: Mo, it’s called colonialism. How does it feel?

Question: What’s Mo’s next move?

The 500 Foot Wall

2010-03-07T23:29:00.006-06:00

Derek and Amber are postmodern college students. They have entered your church for the first time, hoping to find spiritual reality, but a 500-foot wall appears to be blocking their way into the sanctuary.

From the “narthex,” you spot D and A. They look out of place here at church—baggy clothes, tattoos, tongue rings, I-pods. Confused yet confident.

An unmistakable 500-foot barrier separates them from you.

I believe the barrier is real. It’s a cultural barricade, actually. Compare the tendencies of these two cultures:

Question: What do we do with this 500-foot wall of separation?

Bob Osburn on whether to send students to a secular or Christian college:

2010-02-28T23:06:00.001-06:00

[Dr. Osburn serves as executive director of the Wilberforce Academy, which trains students to be redemptive change agents in their home societies http://www.wilberforceacademy.org/. ]

Rick:    Why should a Christian student consider attending a secular college?

Bob:    Exposure to a wide range of views and voices. This is essential if students are going to recognize how distinctive is the Christian voice in public affairs.

Think of it this way: A Christian college (not a bad place at all; I had one son who graduated from a nearby Christian college!) can be like an echo chamber where all the voices sound the same. There is nothing distinctive about them.

By contrast, the secular university is a cacophony, and pretty soon you begin to recognize how different and unique the Christian perspective is because it sounds so different from the others. Speaking personally, my three most exciting years growing in Christ were my sophomore through senior years at the University of Michigan after I became a Christian during my freshman year.

Rick:   Any reasons not to attend a secular college?

Bob:   There are plenty of reasons not to. The multiplicity of voice and views can subtly relativize one’s worldview, and there are you: anchorless. It happens to many.

Perhaps a bigger risk is that a Christian student hangs out with friends who, rather than being intellectually engaging, are morally degrading. The effect can be tragic, unless one is solidly anchored in Christ. So the risks are both intellectual as well as social.

Tribalism and Your Church

2010-02-21T21:35:00.004-06:00

Does the name Ludwig Wittgenstein mean anything to you?

It should. Wittgenstein was a mid-20th century philosopher who gave us “language games.” That is, the way communities use language is similar to a game, and every community gets to make up its own rules of the game.

Two other philosophers of note, John Dewey and Richard Rorty, added a pragmatic twist to language games: Every group should strive to do what works for them. There’s no need to conform your group’s “rules” to any external standard, such as objective truth.

After all, no such standard exists.

On college campuses, this whole landscape is often called tribalism. What it means for Christian students/faculty is that we’ve been relegated to being one tribe among many. One shaper/creator of reality among all the rest. One language game alongside dozens of others.

Tribalism has gone beyond the postmodern university and has settled into mainstream culture. Thus the church is one of the many tribes out there, like one of a thousand flocks of geese, nothing more.

What does this mean for outreach? For evangelism at your church and mine? Two possibilities:

We could work to regain our rightful "Voice of Authority" in order to shape our culture from a position of strength. This choice seems a dead-end to me. On campus, for example, it rarely if ever works.

Accept our cultural demotion, act like one of the tribes, and commend Christian faith to a needy world from a posture of humility. Talk across the table with neighboring tribes rather than down to them.

In my view the Christian tribe should be the most humble, the most truthful, the most respectful, the most daring, the most artistic, the most fun, the most intellectual, the most emotional, the most supernatural, the most caring, the most interracial--the most compelling. . . of any tribe on the planet.

These qualities would revolutionize our outreach. What do you think?

The Rule of Non-Imposition

2010-02-14T15:12:00.000-06:00

One of the inviolable doctrines of the postmodern university is what I call the rule of non-imposition. It means that no group on campus can impose its understanding of the world on any other group.

Picture the university as a huge bowling alley, with every lane occupied by a different group. These groups, or “tribes” as they’re often called, could be ethnic, religious, political or departmental. The rule of non-imposition, which is bundled together with other concepts such as tolerance and respect, forbids tribes from critiquing each other.

“So what?” we may say. People with similar backgrounds/interests hang together in groups, and the groups are supposed to be nice to each other. Not too profound.

The profound part is where it all came from and what it means for the deep epistemology of the university—and the marketplace and church, ten years later.

What a second, the ten years is up, it’s here . . .

QUESTION: Do you see tribalism in your town, job setting, campus? As a Christian, do you feel the pressure of the “rule of non-imposition”?

NEXT WEEK: the origins of tribalism and the RADICAL implications for campus ministry—and your church.

To Inculcate or Evangelize?

2010-02-06T19:19:00.001-06:00

The danger in giving parental advice is manifold. First, it implies a direct cause-effect relationship between parenting techniques and children’s behavior. Second, it can leave parents feeling guilty over wayward children, often falsely so. Third, since Sharon and I got lucky with our own kids, it gives the impression we really knew what we were doing.

With those qualifiers, I feel only slightly safer saying this: Christian parents should think more about evangelizing their kids, less about inculcating them.

I’m thinking here of incremental, sensitive evangelism that listens carefully, loves fully, prays frequently and shares openly. Evangelism that is 100% individualized to the person—whether your little 5-year old explorer, 15-year old wing-spreader, or late-teen wild oats sower.

The crucial difference is this: choice.

Those who inculcate say in essence to their kids: “You don’t really have a choice in the matter. You’re growing up Christian, and that’s that.”

Those who evangelize say something a little different: “You DO have a choice in the matter, and we’re doing all we can to make the Christian pathway attractive and challenging to you.”

Of parental influence, Smith and Denton say this: “The best social predictor, although not a guarantee, of what the religious and spiritual lives of youth will look like is what the religious and spiritual lives of their parents do look like.” (Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, p261).

(Folks, is our own spiritual modeling drawing kids in, or pushing them away?)

When the evangelized come to me at age 18, most are ready to roll in ministry.

When the inculcated show up, often they have little ownership of their faith. Some need a crisis and re-conversion. Others. . . well, they never do show up.

I recognize the inherent risk in what I’m suggesting. But I believe “evangelism” pays off more often than “inculcation.”

Next blog topic: College Campus: what it’s really like out there.

On the Atheist’s Lap

2010-02-01T01:29:00.000-06:00

My daughter Kelli was an inquisitive, expansive thinker right out of the chute. I remember one time she asked me why God wouldn’t show himself if he was actually in the room with us. And why Florida was so far from Minneapolis.

When atheist Benjamin Pierce came to dinner one evening sporting a long beard, Kelli hopped into his lap and stroked the face fuzz for a minute before putting it straight to Ben: “Why don’t you believe in God?”

Ben looked at me apologetically as if his response might forever destroy a virgin intellect. I merely shrugged. At the time I was in an active state of disobedience from the ideology of Christian parents sheltering their kids from worldly influences and alternative belief systems.

It started with my decision in Kelli’s infancy to listen carefully to the parenting advice proclaimed by conservative talk radio and fundamentalist literature—then do precisely the opposite.

So I sheltered her from the most powerful forces that seemed to be pushing my professional audience—college students—out of the house of God: forced church attendance, boring sermons, hoop-jumping through confirmation classes, stringent restrictions on music and clothes and friends, and coerced Bible reading.

My wife Sharon is more temperate than me. She thought I took this whole approach to parenting too far. She’s probably right, I went a bit overboard.

I taught Kelli a non-compartmentalized (integrated) spirituality—namely, that sports and music and dancing and decorating her room were not “neutral” events, spiritually speaking, but rather, fun activities created by God for our enjoyment. Also, that Jesus would be her faithful companion everywhere she went.

My belief was that if a little girl would simply learn to have fun with Jesus, and nothing else, she’d probably grow into a fuller understanding of God and his ways later in life—because she’d want to.

I sought to evangelize, not inculcate. I’ll write about what I think is the difference, next week.

Permissive Parenting

2010-01-24T23:29:00.000-06:00

Citing two separate studies, Christianity Today magazine reported recently that 60-70% of young adults who were active in church as teenagers are spiritually “disengaged” by age 23 (Ja ‘10, p24).

I attribute these alarming statistics, in part, to extremes in Christian parenting, both strict and permissive (see my post of last week on strict parenting).

Some of you have protested that I oversimplify the picture, that there are spiritual and cultural forces, not to mention genetic dispositions, at work in our children that even excellent parenting will not overcome. And that the reverse is true: failed parenting surely does not guarantee failed kids.

I would agree. But I hope this will not drive us to fatalism or prevent us from learning all we can, and doing all we can, to raise godly children—whether our own or the children of friends for whom we act as unofficial, occasional, moms and dads.

With these qualifiers, then, I believe the best of more permissive parenting looks something like this:
•    Maximizing kids’ decision-making, as is age-appropriate.
•    Emphasizing values more than rules.
•    Providing incremental exposure to nonChristian viewpoints.

This overall direction of parenting has a good chance of producing kids who feel empowered and respected, who think for themselves and make wise decisions, and take responsibility for their own actions. They will tend to view God as loving and gracious.

But permissive parenting gone overboard gives too much freedom too early, fails to teach and guide properly, and especially, is lax on discipline. Parental responsibility is abdicated. Thus, “tail wags dog,” kids run wild, and their faith is given up either through apathy or the pursuit of gratifications that were rarely curbed by parents.

So whether you are an actual parent, “surrogate” parent of sorts in your neighborhood or church, or simply imagining yourself a parent, do you lean left or right? Permissive or strict? Tell us your story. Next week I’ll tell mine.

Strict Parenting, and two fine resources

2010-01-17T21:28:00.000-06:00

“Strict,” of course, is a relative term. Strict parenting could range from being simply conservative and attentive to highly rigid, even oppressive.

Following are some benefits and dangers, in my opinion, of strict Christian parenting.

First the good news:
•    Parents establish a moral/spiritual foundation in the home.
•    They instill a sense of confidence and well-grounded identity in their children.
•    They mix discipline with tenderness and grace.

Results in kids' lives. . .
•    They learn to respect authority, traditional values.
•    They're able to stand for truth, knowing right and wrong.
•    They grow up to be hard workers, dependable friends, and are able to succeed in life.

But strict parents should watch out for these extremes:
•    Failing to give appropriate freedom as kids grow older.
•    Too much “telling,” not enough give and take.
•    Anger at liberal society spilling over into parenting.
•    Anti-intellectual, “blind faith” approach to spirituality.
•    Insecurity over parental authority causing arbitrary decisions, lack of clear rationale for words/actions.

Results in kids’ lives. . .
•    Feeling stifled, smothered. Can't wait to "get out from under."
•    Adopting performance-based spirituality to please parents, God.
•    Viewing God as disciplinarian, parole-officer.
•    Going off to college and losing their faith—that is, their parents’ faith.

These ideas are a slice from my church seminar, “Preparing your kids for college.”

Two fine resources on the topic: The First Year Out: Understanding American Teens after High School, by Tim Clydesdale; and Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, by Christian Smith. I highly recommend both.

Your comments are again welcome. Next time I’ll focus on permissive parenting. And then I have some stories to tell.

Preparing kids for college

2010-01-13T23:39:00.003-06:00

Depending on which statistics you believe, the rate of Christian students losing their faith in college ranges from 40-80%. Whatever the exact figure, I can tell you what I’ve seen in my 28 years of campus ministry: it happens “a lot.”

Going AWOL from God in college often happens in two ways:

Kids from strict backgrounds start partying. They’ve been waiting a long time for their moment of freedom, and now they're off to the races! They may also experiment with nonChristian belief systems in college, due (at times) to lack of intellectual engagement during their high school years.

Secondly, kids from more permissive homes. . . start partying. Never well-grounded in a biblical faith, they just drift away with the postmodern tide. You never see them at campus ministry meetings or in church. They just vanish.

Within evangelical circles, I find a spectrum of parenting styles, ranging from permissive to strict, and everything in between. What do you think are some of the benefits/dangers of permissive parenting and strict parenting for getting kids ready for college?