A couple of weeks ago I made mention of Lifeway's new promotional program which contained this statement:

"By focusing on students and helping them become all God wants them to be, student ministry leaders, coming alongside of parents, can help students know God, own their faith, and make their faith known"

We had decent discussion on this, although I would have welcomed far more discussion. My question was whether or not you agree with the statement. It seems that some liked parts of it, and others pointed out a few things that are not so good. Let me attempt to put a few thoughts down. First the positive:

1. The statement of "coming alongside parents" is very welcome. The sheer acknowledgment of the importance of parents in the lives of students shows a major growth in "cutting edge" student ministry. Finally youth ministries are being encouraged to not only involve parents but assist parents in leading their own children. This is welcome indeed, perhaps we will see less lone ranger youth ministries that are divorced from parents and the local body in which it serves.
2. "Owning their faith" is also a pleasing development in student ministries. In years past we would have heard know God and make God known. Of course that "knowing God" step was another way of saying "get saved". So, the principle was "get saved then go get others saved". We have seen the deadly results of this. Students really never got to know God. So, focusing on students owning their faith is welcome.

Now the negative:

1. The first four words of this promotional pamphlet, "By focusing on students", tells me that nothing much has changed in "cutting edge" student ministry. Maybe this is being too harsh, if so forgive me. To me, such a statement negates everything they say after it. How do you suggest "coming alongside parents" and still "focusing on students"? Does this mean that you work with mom and dad to make much of their kid? If so, that is idolatry. More than likely it is marrying the old idea (you've gotta focus on the students) with the new--actually classical and biblical--idea (parents are the primary educators of students). What happens in this case is that "coming alongside parents" is given lip service and student minstry continues to focus on students.
2. Furthermore, is it really a good idea to "focus on the students"? Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that we should not be concerned for students, that our heart should not beat for students, that we should not love students, that we should "just preach the Word" without looking at the crowd. No, we ought to model Jesus in this regard. He loved people. Paul loved people. Look at Romans 9:1-5. Paul basically said, "I'd go to hell for you". This ought to be our heart. But our focus should not be on those we minister to. Our focus ought to be on God. If our primary driving force is students then do we not by our example neuter everything we tell them about "knowing God, owning their faith, and making God known"? The key to student ministry, as it is with any ministry, is being so enthralled with Jesus that you "struggle with all his energy that he powerfully works" within you. The more the leader (parent or student minister) is enamored with the glory of Jesus Christ the more that will catch.

Until we understand that curriculum, preaching, teaching, missions, fellowship, worship, and anything else you want to add, is to be about proclaiming and relishing in the excellencies of Christ we will continue to be focused on man to the peril of their souls. And I mean giving that more than lip service. I mean what John Owen said "If the Word does not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us".

I will be blunt. And maybe this is too either/or and it ought to be a both/and. If so, then I deserve the rebuke. But my thought is that we are so entrenched in man-centered semi-Pelagianism that a "both/and" is next to impossible. Simply put, what we need is not Lifeway curriculum to help us get students to know God, own their faith, and make God known. We need student ministers and parents (as well as students) set ablaze by the Spirit of God, and so enamored with Jesus Christ that He bubbles out of us and the fire he has cast in our soul causes sparks to fly onto another so that they too are lit aflame by our glorious God.

Perhaps that is what it means to Know, Own, and make Known. But it doesn't happen by focusing on students. It happens by focusing on Jesus.

I realize that I am quite behind on posting past sermons. There are four new sermons on Colossians that I have preached.

The first one is part 2 of Colossians 1:15-20: Jesus, Lord of Reconcilation. It is always neat for me looking back at sermons that the Lord uses (at least in part) in His mighty process of reconciliation. One young lady came to know Jesus the night this sermon was preached.

The second one is Colossians 1:21-23: Must I Endure? In this sermon we consider the doctrine of eternal security (or as we Calvinist call it--Preservation of the Saints). I am indebted to Tom Schreiner for many of thoughts in this sermon. He helps us to see how we ought to heed the warning in this text.

The third sermon is on Colossians 1:24-29, where we consider: Are You a Faithful Minister? This was (is) and extremely difficult text to preach. (At least it was for me). At the beginning of preperation it was one of my least favorite sermons. However, once I began writing it quickly became one of my favorites. If I had it to preach over again I would spend more time on the final point--but until I edit you get the uncut sermon.

The fourth sermon is last weeks sermon on Colossians 2:1-5: Truth Matters. This is another sermon that students responded to. I know for me, considering whether or not I truly believe Jesus to be the storehouse of all wisdom and knowledge, this was convicting. In case you read the sermon and want the answers to the first 13 questions: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 are true the rest are false. You may disagree with calling 11 false--I mean it to be somewhat tricky.

May God be glorified!

The Internet is overflowing with garbage. I am not merely talking about all of the pornography and the ramblings of the idiot culture. I am talking about the Christian blogosphere. Just as it is in a Christian bookstore there is quite a bit of rubbish out there. I do not care to add to the collection. So, I have set up a filter for myself; I use it for blogging, for preaching, and for engaging in deeper conversations.

As I have mentioned in the past I have a quote in my office that is taken from Piper's Don't Waste Your Life; I use it as my mandate. "To so live and so study and so serve and so preach and so write that Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen God, be the only boast of this generation." That is great, but how can I determine whether or not I am writing to make Jesus the only boast or if I am simply adding to the heap of Internet rubbish? Simple, you use the Rubbish Filter 101...or as some people like to call it 1 Timothy 1. I use it to ask 7 sets of questions:

1. Does it promote speculation? Is it clearly related to Scripture or does it require a "secret" knowledge to find it in Scripture?
2. Does it accurately preserve the gospel and transmit the clear gospel? Is it faithful to the stewardship that God has given us?
3. Is it motivated out of love? Or is it pride, self-evaluation, revenge, self-righteousness, bitterness, discord, or unbelief?
4. Will it lead to vain discussion?
5. Is my motivation to promote the unity and purity of the Bride of Christ or my own name?
6. Does this come from a deep conviction and love for the Christ and His Gospel?
7. Will this doctrine exalt man to an undue place?

There you have it. Mark Dever has a few good questions he asks concerning what doctrines are essential (I would be indebted to anyone that could provide a link to that). Also Michael Patton considers the same question, here.

I do not mean this question to be loaded by any means; I simply wonder if you have noticed this too. I was reading an article the other day by a very respected Christian leader. In this article he very inaccurately sums up the emerging church movement. It caused me to wonder whether or not this man has even studied much of anything about the emerging church. From his summary statement it appears that he has read an article or two and now feels he fully understands all the intricacies of the movement.

In the past I have also read very ridiculous arguments against Calvinism. I say ridiculous not because I am a Calvinist and what the author said got me thinking. I say ridiculous because the Calvinism the author argued against has absolutely nothing in common with what I believe. Keep in mind this is not some amateur theologian, this is a guy with a Ph.D. and plenty of papers on his wall.

Here is my question. Have you noticed that at a certain point many "big-name" (celebrity) leaders in Christendom rest on their name and no longer engage in scholarly research? I understand that often renowned secular authors and philosophers will do much the same. I don't have a point, I am just wondering if I am off the wall or if somebody else has noticed this?

What do you think? Is ministry about the person you are ministering to? Should the student ministers focus be on the students?

Lifeway has discovered what youth pastors have known for awhile; we don't keep students after they graduate high school. The statistic being thrown around now is 70% of students will not stay in church. How do we fix that? The Lifeway solution is their new program: Know, Own, Known.

On the back of a promotional pamphlet for the product I found this statement:

"By focusing on students and helping them become all God wants them to be, student ministry leaders, coming alongside of parents, can help students know God, own their faith, and make their faith known"

So, what do you think? Good idea? Great idea? Not so good of an idea? I plan to discuss this (as well as start talking more about student ministry) on Monday.

Compromise can be a good thing. Compromise is especially necessary when partners have conflicting desires in marriage. However, compromise can also be synonymous with selling out the gospel. A quote that Steve Camp referenced made me think of this. Campi quoted Jay McInerney as saying, "The good life is the middle way..." What a wonderful summary of postmodern thought. In one sense I actually agree with the quote. In another sense I disagree with it from the core of my being.

I agree that compromise (or the middle way) can be a good thing. When no clear answer is spelled out in Scripture then compromise is a wise way to go. If my wife wants Burger King (and enjoys their slow service and gross food) and I want Taco Bell (with its luscious Chicken Bacon Ranch chalupas) then a compromise (you decide what that would be) is a good option. Theologically speaking, if there are issues in Scripture that are somewhat unclear and not very close to the gospel then perhaps compromise is a good idea. There are quite a few hills that are not worth dying on.

On the other hand when truth is known compromise is stupid and morally repulsive. Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God. Nobody else does. Compromise in this regard would not be a virtue but tantamount to abandoning the faith. Now, the pomo will tell us that truth cannot be known, therefore, the "good life is the middle way..." As believers in the God that calls believers to worship Him in spirit and truth, we cannot sell out to such garbage. God has clearly revealed Himself in Scripture. There are things that can be known, and known absolutely. On these matters refuse to compromise.

Compromise can be appealing. After all is it not easy to be "unified" when we all seek the middle ground? But, unity for the sake of unity is no virtue. If unity is not unified around the truth of Christ then it stands just as opposed to God as the people in Genesis 11. Brothers and sisters, there are things that we must NOT compromise on. The good life is not the middle way, it is the narrow way.

One last thing. There is a difference between compromise and cooperation. Take the debate in the SBC over those darn Calvinists. I would consider myself on the Calvinistic side of the debate. To me compromise is not an option. My Arminian friends would probably say the same thing. The truth is compromise for either side would be (in the opinion of each) a sell out. Therefore, in these situations the call is not to compromise it is to cooperation. It is having a "self-sacrificing conformity to a shared vision" and cooperating despite our differences. Compromise is stupid, cooperation is not.

"All the delights in the sensual life are but as the putrid waters of a corrupt pond where toads lie croaking and spawning, compared to the crystal streams of the most pure and pleasant fountain." --John Flavel, The Method of Grace