For those of our readership who are not aware, the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation has entrusted Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary with the papers and correspondence of the late theologian, apologist, and evangelist. His son-in-law Udo Middelman made the presentation in Southeastern’s chapel last year , on behalf of the Schaeffer Foundation. To access the official press release, click here.

The collection includes select unpublished papers and correspondence, source materials, notes, and recorded discussions of Schaeffer, who is also the author of 27 books. The collection has been placed under the direction of Bruce Little, professor of Christian philosophy and director of SEBTS’s L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture.

Purpose Driven was the first bogeyman I remember in Southern Baptist life. Instead of focusing on real dangers facing our denomination, some Southern Baptists started preaching against wearing Hawaiian shirts and sitting on stools (from the annual meeting and Pastors’ Conference, no less).

But now, Rick Warren has just spoken at the Anabaptist Conference at Southwestern Seminary.  And, I think that’s great.  I just wish we had not spent over a decade making Purpose Driven the bogeyman and a generation of Purpose Driven churches feel unwelcome in and disconnected with the SBC.  (If you don’t think that is the case, look around and see how many contemporary churches are actively involved in Convention life.)

These contemporary church bogeymen were not denying the Bible—the SBC ones believed in the Conservative Resurgence and wanted to live it out in their contemporary churches.  But, after hearing that they were the new bogeymen, they are not around that much today.

Five years ago, the bogeyman was “emerging.”  Ironically, there was never much that “emerged” in the SBC, though you would not know that by some of the loudest voices.  Turns out, I found out, I was emergent—yep, Brian McLaren and me, according to one critic. Yet, the Emergent wing of the emerging church was about three pastors in SBC life. As I explained in Baptist Press, most SBC pastors just wanted to preach the gospel in emerging culture. Those SBC pastors soon distanced themselves from those moving out of orthodoxy.  Yet, some in the Convention started swinging a big bat at a little gnat and drove out another generation of people who simply wanted to reach what was called, at that time, a postmodern culture.

Now, the new bogeyman is Calvinism. Critics are labeling people as Calvinists and Calvinist “sympathizers” (yes, they are using that scare word). Yet, most SBC Calvinists (about 10 percent of pastors and 30 percent of recent seminary graduates) affirm the current Baptist Faith and Message, want to reach people for Christ, and desire to cooperate together in SBC life.

So, in a decade, the bogeyman has gone from Purpose Driven, to emerging, to Calvinism. And, although it is much bigger than me, I’ve been labeled a bogeyman in each era.  First, they said I was Purpose Driven, then I was emerging, and now I am a Calvinist.  Ironically, I haven’t changed much.

My mother used to instruct me not to go out after dark because the bogeyman would get me.  In truth, there were serious dangers outside after dark, but the bogeyman was not one of them.  Bogeymen are exaggerated dangers to scare people—and that is what some are doing in SBC life, just as they have in the past.

In the same way, there are real issues here to address.  The Conservative Resurgence was over matters that were crucial.  And even in the aforementioned bogeymen, there have been very real challenges at every turn.  Ten years ago (and in every decade), some churches that called themselves “Purpose Driven” pursued relevance more than they pursued righteousness.  Five years ago, some bad theology “emerged” (and because of such, many quit using that term).  And, today, there are some militant Calvinists so driven by Calvinism, they can’t cooperate and don’t need to be in the Convention.  I call them “nostalgic Calvinists,” pining away for the past more than engaging and cooperating in the present.

I described such Calvinists five years ago in an interview with the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Seminary:

I do see many self-identified Calvinists who are constantly discussing the 18th century as the golden age of theology and praxis in Baptist life. So, I don’t want them to get over Calvinism, but it would be nice if they got into the Third Millennium. At times, I am convinced some “nostalgic Calvinists” have forgotten our mandate is to see men and women brought into the kingdom, not into Geneva.

I am concerned about some of the trends in SBC Calvinism and think we need more conversation (and less insinuation) about the topic. It’s easier to talk about bogeymen.

Some want to divide us—yet I believe that most SBC pastors want us to be united and on mission. They want to build on the Conservative Resurgence to see a Great Commission focus.

I am a Baptist—a Southern Baptist at that. I’ve written or contributed to over a dozen books that point churches to be more effectively engaged in missions and evangelism—the focus of my ministry for over two decades. And, I hoped and prayed that Baptists would be more concerned about reaching the lost than labeling one another.

The Southern Baptist Convention can and must include Purpose Driven pastors, pastors who used to call themselves emerging, and Calvinist pastors, when they choose to affirm our BFM confession and engage in mission cooperation. But the drums of war are sounding again, and Calvinists are the newest bogeymen.

We don’t need another SBC purge—we’ve already preached out a big part of a generation of contemporary churches.  Now, we have to decide if we want to do the same to the Calvinist ones who want to cooperate.

As I said at this blog a few years ago:

The Baptist Faith and Message is our confessional consensus. Formulated and approved by the convention, it should fix the boundary for churches and entities that call themselves Southern Baptist. Those who would want to impose their own more narrow parameters of cooperation place others in the unenviable position, to use a football metaphor, of having the goalposts moved while the field goal attempt is in flight. If indeed we have a consensus, and we do, let that be the center point of our working together.

Preaching against bogeymen gets the big amen at some meetings and in some publications, but we should take notice– those meetings are getting older and smaller every year.

Ed Stetzer, VP of LifeWay Christian Resources

In the last installment, we defined theology as “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.” In future installments, we will talk about the audience of theology, the tools of theology, and the relationship of theology to other disciplines such as theology and philosophy. But first, I want to take a moment to speak about the relationship of theology to the four concepts mentioned above: Scripture and its grand narrative, as well as worship, obedience, and mission.[1] First, theology arises out of the biblical narrative. The Bible is composed of sixty six books with multiple genres, and is written by numerous authors in a diversity of historical and cultural contexts. However, this diversity is part of a beautiful unity which can be seen in the Bible’s overarching story. This story begins with God’s creation and humanity’s rebellion, and then proceeds with God’s unfolding plan of redemption. The biblical narrative is the true story of the whole world. Furthermore, it is dramatic in nature, inviting us into the story so that the story will shape our lives. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen write, “[The biblical narrative] functions as the authoritative Word of God for us when it becomes the one basic story through which we understand our own experience and thought, and the foundation upon which we base our decisions and our actions.”[2] Finally, this narrative is un-substitutable: it should not be discarded in favor of alliterated moralisms, philosophical syllogisms, devotional truisms, or any other substitute.

Second, theology arises from and issues forth in worship and obedience. On the one hand, theology arises from worship as we seek to understand, conceptualize, and articulate the God whom we cherish. Likewise, theology arises from obedience; if we want to know and love God more truly, will allow ourselves to be conformed to the image of Christ, in order that we will be able to see him and hear him more clearly. On the other hand, theology issues forth in worship and obedience. Michael Horton writes, “When the doctrine is understood in the context of its dramatic narrative, we find ourselves dumbfounded by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, surrendering to doxology (praise). Far from masters, we are mastered; instead of seizing the truth, we are seized by it, captivated by God’s gift, to which we can only say, ‘Amen!’ and ‘Praise the Lord’.”[3] Without close attention to the biblical narrative and its attendant evangelical doctrine, our worship and obedience are at best unfocused and at worst idolatrous. However, when we consciously submit to the biblical narrative and its teaching, the flame of our worship and obedience is fueled by the oxygen of Word and Spirit.

Third, theology arises from, and issues forth in mission. The early church is a prime example. On the one hand their theology arose in the midst of their God-given mission. Paul’s epistles, for example, were written as he proclaimed the gospel, planted churches, and suffered for the sake of his faith. But on the other hand, their robust and powerful theology caused their mission to flourish.[4] This mutually beneficial relationship arises from the fact that God’s Triune nature is the foundation of mission and his Triune life provides the pattern for mission.[5] God is missional, therefore theology is missional. Mission is based upon God, therefore mission is theological.[6] The biblical narrative, from which Christian theology arises, is nothing if not a missional narrative.[7] Any theology that purports to be Christian but does not arise from mission and issue forth in mission is not a truly Christian theology at all.

[2] Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 21.

[3] Horton, The Christian Faith, 22.

[4] See I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 34-37, 717-726.  Marshall argues that mission is the core of the New Testament.

[5] For further reading on the Triune God as the foundation and pattern of mission, see Keith Whitfield, “The Triune God: The God of Mission,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 17-34.

[6] This is a central thread in Christopher Wright’s grand treatment of mission as a hermeneutical key for the biblical narrative. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006).

[7] For a brief exposition of the biblical narrative in relation to the concept of mission, see Bruce Riley Ashford, “The Story of Mission: The Grand Biblical Narrative,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 6-16.

What is theology? If we are going to reflect upon theology, we must first define it. There exist as many definitions of theology as there are theologians, and the various ways of defining it are not necessarily opposed to one another, but one way to put it is to say that it is “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.”[1] Theology is disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, because the God we know, love, and obey has revealed himself in times past through his mighty acts, through his prophets and apostles, and through the incarnation of his Son, and now reveals himself through his written Word (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). This written Word is the primary source upon which a theologian draws, and is the norm by which we measure any other theological source (e.g. church tradition).

Further, theology is done for the purpose of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world. The task of theology is cognitive, affective, and dispositional. It aims at the head, the heart, and the hands. J. L. Dagg writes, “The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt.”[2] Theology entails more than merely acquiring information about God; it entails affection for God and submission to God. When the theologian properly attends to the cognitive, affective, and dispositional dimensions of the task, he is able to glorify God’s name. Herman Bavinck writes, “… a theologian, a true theologian, is one who speaks out of God, through God, about God, and does this always to the glorification of His name.”[3] The task of theology, therefore, is to glorify God by knowing, loving, and serving him.

One of the things I’m really driving at here is the fact that theology should not be an ivory-tower enterprise. When it becomes disconnected from God’s church and her mission, and when it becomes an endeavor undertaken by isolated “intellectuals” who are not actively serving God and hischurch, it ceases to be a truly Christian theology. When Paul did theology, he did it in the midst of ministry and mission. And his theology furthered the ministry and mission. So there is a mutually beneficial relationship between Christian theology and Christian ministry. We will talk more about this in a later installment.

[2] J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano, 1982), 13.

[3] Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1956), 31.

Student ministers know this term well, or at least they should. Christian Smith and Melinda Denton popularized this term out of their massive research called The National Study of Youth and Religion.

They argue the Western Church has done a phenomenal job of communicating to students. But what has been communicated has not been as biblically centered as we might hope. We have communicated Christianity as behavior modification too often and as the matchless work of a grace-bearing God who is the center of it all too little.

In her presentation of the findings of perhaps the most exhaustive study of recent youth culture, Kendra Creasy Dean observed:
“The National Study of Youth and Religion reveals a theological fault line running underneath American churches: an adherence to a do-good, feel-good spirituality that has little to do with the Triune God of Christian tradition and even less to do with loving Jesus Christ enough to follow him into the world.” (Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, p. 4)

In other words, Dean argues that this study shows the very way many of us have raised children in our churches has worked against any sort of missional impulse we might otherwise hope to engage. This is no small charge. She adds: “American young people are unwittingly being formed into an imposter faith that poses as Christianity, but that in fact lacks the holy desire and missional clarity necessary for Christian discipleship.” (p. 6)

What has been taught, this thing they call therapeutic moralistic deism, offers a how-to faith based on the needs of the individual over the redemptive plan of the Creator God. How has this happened, often in churches which stand firmly on the Bible as the Word of God? I would argue part of this comes from our tendency to view students as “kids” who are more silly than serious. I wrote a whole book on that called Raising the Bar. In addition, we have fundamentally made a shift in much of our teaching and living of the Scripture from seeing the Bible through the lenses of the gospel and the mission of God to understanding the Bible primarily as a roadmap which will guide us via morality to the place of faithfully serving God.

Unfortunately, many churches have taught the Bible to children and youth not as a book with one central, redemptive message, but as a collection of stories and morals with the gospel as the key story. Therapeutic moralistic deism is “therapeutic,” for it focuses on surface change, turning the Bible into a counseling manual more than the revelation of God. It is “moralistic,” because its focus is behavior modification. Acting right subtly becomes more important than believing right. It is “deistic,” because it does not require a God who is intimately involved in all of Creation and in all aspects of our lives, but who generally exists to bring us happiness and most specifically in our spiritual lives.

I call it the Aesop’s Fable approach to the Bible. It is ironically a “moral failure,” for by focusing on morality too much we actually hinder students from seeing the lifelong, holistic implications of their faith. Motivation for serving God stems more from changing our behavior than from living a life of radical faith. Such extrinsic motivation will actually work on the short term: show students how sex before marriage will lead to guilt and disease, for instance, or show them how lying will cost them friendships, and they will abstain from these sins, at least for a season. But if moral change becomes the primary focus of our faith, the long-term obedience we seek may actually be the one thing we will not see.

It could well be that we are contributing to students’ dropping out of church with our short-term focus over eternal values. But the much-debated topic of dropout rates actually fails to emphasize a more critical point, because even those who remain in our churches lack the missional drive to make gospel impact in their daily lives. In other words, how many who stay “in church” still “drop out” of active, daily, missional faith?

All this of course is not to say that behavioral change is unimportant. Our morality marks a vital part of being conformed to the image of Christ. But, a growing sense of moral uprightness and a concomitant behavior reflecting this results from our faith; behavior change simply cannot be the prime motivator. We have confused the point (the indicative) with the result (the imperative), and this has not helped us in discipling students.

For instance, instead of seeing the story of David as all Scripture does, tied closely to the story of redemption and the coming of the Messiah, we take a story like David and Goliath and moralize it, and in so doing we actually marginalize it. We preach about how David killed Goliath, so we can now defeat those pesky enemies in our lives. Or, Joseph’s brothers victimized him and yet God used him, so Joseph’s story becomes a means of therapy for those who have been hurt. Yet when we read the story of Joseph from the perspective of all of Scripture and the message of redemption throughout, we see his vital role in the mission of God to save sinners. That is not to say we cannot learn practical advice from David’s defeat of a giant or Joseph’s determined faith; but it is to say that we can miss the greater point of these narratives by turning them into individual stories with a moral. These are not parables; they help us to connect with the plan of God in eternity.

The practical result of turning the Bible into a series of moral truths is to assume the gospel and to minimize its role in our lives. We move the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection to the category of “lost person only,” so that the gospel is for unbelievers, not believers. So we have our mega-youth events and we share the gospel (or often tack it on at the end) at these, but we do not teach the impact of the gospel for the believer and the redemptive story of God in all of the Bible and thus its impact on all of life. Thus, students grow up in church, learn a lot of stories, and are destroyed in one semester of Intro to Philosophy when they go off to college. They never got the border of the puzzle of life by understanding the mission of God; they simply got practical stories on how to deal with certain felt needs, and they got their eternal destiny taken care of, or so they think. Many become the dechurched—those who grow up in the church but walk away when away from the familiar (family, home church, etc). Others limp their way through life spiritually, never getting the great plan of God for creation and for their lives.

As a result too many students move into the adult world understanding their faith as something on the level of importance of music, sports, or other topics that matter but are, as Dean notes, “Unnecessary for an integrated life.” (Dean, 6). In other words, she adds, Christianity becomes nothing more than “a very nice thing.”

Following Jesus into the world cannot simply be a “very nice thing.”

A focus on Christianity as therapeutic moralistic deism explains why so many believers today confuse biblical Christianity with civil religion and the spiritual war for the souls of men with the culture wars of winning political arguments. In recent months I have moved from speaking on a variety of diverse subjects to staying focused on the greatness of the gospel and the glory of Christ. I have seen more come to faith than any season of ministry in a long time. And I keep getting emails form students who tell me how their understanding of Christ has pushed them outside the walls of the church to caring for others through the gospel. In earlier seasons of revival we read of how young people played critical roles in those movements, and those movements had a searing hot devotion to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If we will have a missional movement in our time, it may manifest itself in many ways practically, but it will be birthed out of gospel fervor — not moral failure.

Recently World Magazine ran a very interesting and important article entitled, “The Other Unreached People Group.” (January 14, 2012, pg. 30).  It points out that in addition to the geographical window of the 10/40 people group, a geographical region that represents billions of lost Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhist, there is now a new generational people group that is unreached.  This is persons between the ages of 10 and 30.  The article points out that today there are 2.4 billion people in the world between the ages of 10 and 30.  Jonathan Taylor of Global Youth and Family Ministries notes that this constitutes, “the largest unreached people group in human history, larger than the 100 largest geographically defined unreached people groups combined.”  It also pointed out that over 50% of people around the globe are now under the age of 25.  This is an amazing and startling fact.

However, the article goes on to say that this emerging global youth culture has more in common with one another than it does with the adults of their own culture.  It notes that, “theirs is a world shaped by media, by technology, and by the predominance of English as the language of the internet.”  That later fact is especially significant, and one that we can rejoice in.  However, that there seems to be a genuine disconnect between an older and younger generation is troubling.  Many of us have talked about this within the SBC, but this article argues that it is a worldwide phenomenon.  Today’s youth learn primarily from social media websites, not the dinner table.  They go to YouTube and they Google.  Whereas parents once were a primary source for information and guidance, tragically this often is no longer the case.  Eric Larson, also of Global Youth and Family Ministries, makes a most sobering observation: “we used to guide our children into the pool and teach them how to swim.  But this is the generation of parents who walked away.  We’ve pushed our children into the pool and we aren’t in the water with them.”

Is there a solution to this dilemma?  Larson and Taylor think so.  They issue a simple and direct plea: “We are calling on an entire adult population to turn its hearts to the young.”  This plea is significant for evangelicals as we think about how we reach our own children, our nation and the world.  I think it has significance for how we strategize in terms of missions in the days ahead.  There must be a laser beam focus on the young in terms of evangelism and discipleship.  We must prioritize time, energy and resources to reach this massive unreached people group with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God has provided a covenant community with a mandate to address this wonderful opportunity for the advancement of the gospel.  It is the Church.  We, as His Body, dare not hesitate.  We must not sit on the sideline.  The challenge is plain.  The question is, will we rise to the occasion? I pray that we will.  I know we should.

 When Henry Ward Beecher was asked whether or not life was worth living, he replied, “Depends very much upon the liver.  Optimism and pessimism are largely matters of digestion.”

A student gave his reasons for rejecting the best-possible-worlds notion: “I would kill off all the bed-bugs, mosquitoes and fleas, and make oranges and bananas grow farther north.”

Strong has several quotes relating to mosquitoes.  He says, “A lady who was bitten by a mosquito asked whether it would be proper to speak of the creature as ‘a depraved little insect.’  She was told that this would be improper, because depravity always implies a previous state of innocence, whereas the mosquito has always been as bad as he now is.”

Dr. Lyman Beecher, however, seems to have held the contrary view.  “When he had captured the mosquito who had bitten him, he crushed the insect saying: ‘There! I’ll show you that there is a God in Israel!’ He identified the mosquito with all the corporate evil of the world.”

Who knew that Victorian theologians had such a sense of humor?

“In recent days, missiologists and missionaries have become aware of ‘Insider Movements,’ which represent a new phenomenon and a new strategy in Muslim evangelism.[2] Insider Movements (IM) are movements within the Muslim world in which Muslim background believers choose to remain within Islam as a means of reaching Muslims. Some of them acknowledge Christ as their Savior only privately. IM proponents argue that this type of contextualization allows the convert to overcome significant barriers in order to incarnate like Jesus and Paul. Further, they argue that Christ does not require a convert to change his cultural identity or religion, and that the convert is free to reinterpret passages of the Qur’an so that he doesn’t have to renounce it as a whole. In addition, many IM proponents seem to see Islam as similar to OT Judaism and therefore not inherently opposed to the gospel.

We believe that IM strategy is fundamentally flawed for various reasons, but for now we will seek to show why theological method matters in adjudicating this issue. As we see it, the fundamental methodological flaw in many IM advocate’s strategy is their starting point—the existential reality of a Muslim background believer. IM proponents appear to begin with the lived existential tensions of being a convert in a Muslim context. In such environments, there are many barriers, including the strong aversion to “changing religions,” which is tantamount in those cultures to changing ones ethnic, national, and familial identity. Further these environments are also persecution-heavy, a convert faces the very real possibility of losing his job and family and perhaps even his life. Proceeding from such a difficult starting point, some IM proponents find a way to those converts.  In order to do so, some IM proponents hold to an overly privatized and reductionist view of salvation in which a person gives mental assent to Christ as Savior, but does not fully embrace or implement the doctrines of repentance and Lordship. Second, some IM proponents do not recognize the importance of the redeemed community for the working out of one’s salvation (although others, such as Kevin Higgins, strongly emphasize the role of believing communities meeting together separate from the mosque for the purpose of Christian community and discipleship). Third many IM advocates misunderstand Islam, which exists as a religion custom-built to subvert and overthrow Trinitarian Christianity. Its Aryan Jesus and its doctrines of tawhid and shirk make clear that the worst possible sin for a Muslim is to believe in the Christian doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. In sum, these three doctrinal missteps occurred in part because of a flawed theological starting point—the existential reality of Muslim converts.

We argue that if IM proponents began with the entire canon of Scripture as their starting point, and took into account  what can be learned from church history, they would arrive at a different conclusion while still caring deeply for, and being sensitive to, the existential burdens and challenges facing converts in a Muslim context. In taking into account the entire biblical teaching, we respond to the first misstep by offering the biblical teaching concerning Christ’s Lordship (Col. 1:13-23) and the necessity of human repentance (2 Pet 3:9; Lk 14:25-33). Indeed, believers in any global religious context must turn their backs on false saviors; they must repudiate tribal gods and witch doctors; they must reject their belief that the Qur’an is God’s revelation and that Muhammad is his prophet; they must cease to worship in spirit temples and ancestral shrines; they must turn their back on the worship of sex, money, power, and other metaphorical idols. This is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. We respond to the second misstep by offering a robust ecclesiology in which we are not only saved from our sins, but are saved for discipleship in the context of the believing community, a community that clearly distinguishes itself from other communities of worship. Indeed, God’s church is a sign of the kingdom and an instrument of the kingdom in a way that individual converts never can be (especially if those converts are still identifying themselves as Muslims and attending mosque services). The body of Christ, working together, bears robust and powerful witness to Christ. We respond to the third misstep by offering the biblical teaching on idolatry (Rom 1:14-32), in which Islam must be viewed as idolatrous and antithetical to Trinitarian Christianity and to the doctrines of grace.

One should note that the persecuted believers of the New Testament faced a similar situation in which they worshiped in the midst of rival religions. In particular, they found themselves in direct opposition to the cult of Caesar. Instead of blending in with the cult, they found appropriate ways to make clear their allegiance to Christ. They baptized, gathered together for worship, and refused to recognize Caesar as a god. Theirs was a faith which was forged the midst of strong Christian churches which clearly distinguished themselves from rival religious communities, such as the cult of Caesar. Although the (commendable) aim of IM proponents is to help new converts maintain familial and communal connections, IM unintentionally undermines the role of the church in nurturing faith, building community, and bearing witness to the kingdom, and it undermines the robust nature of the doctrine of salvation, which includes Lordship, repentance, and discipleship.

In summary, a healthy theological method recognizes the entire biblical canon and brings its full teaching to bear on any situation; further it allows the canon to be provide the framework and parameters in which we craft our ministry strategies, methods, and literature, rather than allowing a lived existential scenario to provide the framework and parameters.”

[2] For two insider descriptions of IM, see Kevin Higgins, “The Key to Insider Movements: The ‘Devoted’s’ of Acts,” IJFM 21 (Winter 2004): 155, and Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,” IJFM 24 (Summer 2007): 75. IM advocates note that some IM believers have indeed been killed for their bold witness.

Enter the Naperville School District near Chicago. In this single district, of the 19K sophomores, only 3% were overweight (compared to 30% nationally).  But the students in this district are not only more fit. In 1999, their 8th graders took the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study test, an international standards test taken by 230K students globally. Ratey observes that in a time students in China, Japan, and Singapore rank consistently above American students, the Naperville class ranked 6th in math and FIRST in science globally.

What happened in this school district? Several factors, as one reason hardly ever explains such a remarkable performance. But one issue stands out: each school day in Naperville starts with a class called Zero Hour in which students begin not with study hall, but with a fitness class. Ratey observes:

“The essence of physical education in Naperville 203 is teaching fitness instead of sports. The underlying philosophy is that if physical education class can be used to instruct kids how to monitor and maintain their own health and fitness, then the lessons they learn will serve them for life.” 

Imagine that, expecting young people to be responsible for developing their own fitness goals for a lifelong trajectory.

Sounds rather like raising the bar to me.

He continues: “What’s being taught, really, is a lifestyle. The students are developing healthy habits, skills, and a sense of fun, along with a knowledge of how their bodies work.” 

You mean you can teach young people that fun is not separate from learning responsibility? Now, there is a novel thought for student ministry. Just saying.

The Naperville school district ranks consistently in the top ten in Illinois even though the amount of money it spends per pupil is considerably lower than other top Illinois schools. Could it be that fitness is the most inexpensive means to raise test scores?

What has happened in Naperville did not begin with a brilliant educator with a mensa-level IQ. It started with a PE teacher who read about the growing unhealthiness of American students. But you can read Ratey’s book to get the details for yourself, and I encourage you to do so.

For the Naperville students they no longer take gym classes with inane topics like learning the dimensions of a volleyball court. They start with first period in gym clothes and with heart rate monitors. And they run; every student runs a mile.

What they discovered: learning is significantly enhanced when preceded by exercise.

If you are a student struggling with academics, and sometimes discouraged or even depressed by your setbacks, try exercising. If you are a pastor struggling to juggle sermon prep, witnessing, counseling, and other important aspects of your schedule, do something counterintuitive–add exercise to your schedule. Get up, get active, start your day by getting your body going. Just do this for a while and see what happens. More studies than can be counted have noted the positive, ripple effect of exercise on dealing with depression, on eating better, on developing discipline, and on one’s general disposition. Most of that we already knew.

Now we know that it also can directly affect academic performance.

So, students, if you are serious about becoming better in your studies, don’t start in the library at a desk with a stack of books–start at your home with some running shoes or a set of weights.

You may discover you are smarter than you thought.

Wherever I go, whether I am speaking with a local church and its leaders or a gathering of student pastors, one thing is clear in all these discussions. And that one thing was the point of this weekend:
student ministry in the Western Church needs a revolution. Not a tweaking. Not an enhancing. A revolution. Okay, some believe it needs annihilation, but I am more prone to think we need a revolution.

On Friday night something remarkable happened. One of the founders of what is probably the largest, most influential student ministry organizations in my lifetime made a confession. Wayne Rice, who co-founded Youth Specialties, said this in part: “We got what we wanted. We turned youth ministry into the toy department of the church. Churches now hire professionals to lead youth ministry. We got relevance but we created a generation of teenagers who are a mile wide and are an inch deep.”

That, my friends, is a remarkable confession. Why do so many who grow up in church not maintain a healthy commitment to the local church when they are on their own? Because we created a youth ministry culture that taught them to do so. We have not equipped students to be adults, who understand the gospel and live as missionaries. We have not created a love for the body of Christ as much as a love for events and activities. We created a “cool” subculture where they could be treated like the center of the universe and given a bunch of stuff. And not enough Jesus, Scripture, or character.

I am tired of meeting young adults who tell me what they remember from their youth group experience is “invite a friend” and “don’t have sex.”

To his credit, Wayne Rice then argued for three changes:
1. Turn student ministry back over to the church. Youth pastors should be seeking to work themselves out of a job as they help youth become incorporated into the life of the church.
2. We can no longer ignore the role of the parents.
3. We can offer them nothing better than the gospel

I am really trying at this point not to inject a great deal of sarcasm. I will instead say how much I appreciate the fact that this leader has admitted the abject failure of so much of youth ministry over the past generation. I could add so much about cultural influences, about how leaders in youth ministry over a generation have been captive to the immediate culture and seemingly unable to step back and see that immediate, short term “success” must always be weighed against both the Word of God and the long term implications of a given emphasis or activity. But that will have to be considered another day.

I want to agree with Wayne Rice. We need a new paradigm. I want to offer my thoughts on what that paradigm should emphasize:

First, God. We need a new vision of God. his vastness, His involvement in everything, His power, His love and justice. If your students have a lot better grasp on who you are as the student pastor than who God is as the mighty creator of the universe who sustains the world by the word of his power, you have a problem. If your students understand the latest stats on sexuality in America more than they know the attributes of God and how He is King over all of life, you have a serious problem. We need student pastors, national and parachurch leaders who are better at theology than at new ideas. Wayne noted that the founders of Young Life said it is a sin to make Christianity boring. Agreed. And it is a greater sin to make Christianity silly, which is what has happened. We must exalt a great God and give focus to His Word. We need less Christian subculture and more Biblical worldview.

Second, the gospel. The next thing you should read beyond Scripture is not a book on youth ministry. Read Gospel by J.D. Greear. Study The Story by Spread Truth at www.viewthestory.com. We have taken the good news of the gospel and taken it off the headlines of our ministries where it should be always, and we have put it in the advice column part of our youth groups. We pull the gospel out to give advice rather than showing students how Jesus is the hero of all of Scripture, all of life, all the parts of their lives, and how the gospel makes sense of everything. Let me remind you that in newspapers, advice columns are next to the cartoons. And that is what we do with the gospel, putting it next to an ipod giveaway instead of showcasing it always as the main event, the one thing that is constantly newsworthy in your ministry. We need a radical, Christocentric transformation, understanding the gospel is for salvation AND sanctification, for saved and unsaved alike. Jesus is the answer to all of life–not the thin, superficial, subcultural Jesus, but the Jesus who cares for the broken and rebukes the self-righteous: the children-loving, disciple-calling, leper-healing, Pharisee-rebuking, humble child born and ultimately the reigning Lord Jesus.

The message of God is central to all of Scripture, all of creation, all of history, and if we rightly understand Christianity, all of life. Jesus and His work on the cross speaks to everything from attitude (see Philippians 2) to forgiveness (see Ephesians 4), from how we understand finances (see 2 Cor to how we deal with sexual temptation (1 Cor 6), or from how we deal with relationships of the same sex (see Paul and Timothy in 2 Tim 2:1-2) to how we understand marriage (Eph 5:25). Our encouragement in facing persecution for Christ is the gospel (Acts 4:23-31) and our instruction in how to live all of life (2 Cor 10:9-21) is founded in the gospel. So, if students get nothing else but Jesus in His glory and greatness, they have gotten enough. Give them the message of God so they can spend their lives living out the mission of God.

Third, the goal. The goal of student ministry is to develop disciples who see the world as missionaries and live as missionaries. The goal is not to have a great event and have a lot of buzz. Just because organizations like Youth Specialties gets a big crowd at their meetings does not make it significant for the Kingdom of God in eternity. My point is not to be critical of YS or any other youth cottage industry (I have never even been to a YS gathering, I just observe all around me in youth ministry the effects of what Wayne Rice said at the conference). This means we do less student ministry that is based on the lowest common denominator. This means we will intentionally involve parents at a much greater level in our ministries. It means we will magnify marriage more than dating and maturity more than activity. It means you score success in long-term disciples. It means to help students to grow and to develop their own plan for gospel impact now. If you help individual students to develop a plan for gospel advance in the context of your local church you, will in fact help them to hear from God and be confident in their planning and thus to be better prepared about college, career, etc. this means your role may be less to be the Pied Piper to students and more a developer of leaders who can help students develop uniquely.

Or, it could mean that your focus is not primarily to plan events or even to be a great speaker, but to help student see themselves as artists who were created by God to be remarkable in some way for the glory of God and the sake of the gospel.

Fourth, the gathering. Connect to the whole church, across generations. The generation of teens today is not only the largest, it is also the most fatherless. We must connect students to the larger church and not function as a parachurch ministry within a church building. Students need older believers in their lives. We need a Titus 2 revolution where older men teach younger guys and older women teach younger ladies.

I would love your thoughts. I try really hard not to simply criticize well-meaning people who have tried to help young people. Anybody can take a hammer and tear something down, but we need people to help build up laborers for the Kingdom. I have made more than my share of mistakes. But it is time for a revolution, with the gospel of Jesus Christ at her center.