This post was originally uploaded onto the earlier version of this blog on 25 August 2005

Looking at my posts recently, they’ve been a bit “heavy” on the theology side. So, to break that a bit, I decided to write up a thought that has been running around my head for the past few weeks. It has to do with how worship leaders help people to connect with God (I also think it applies equally to preachers/teachers as well).

In analysing how people learn, researchers have come to recognise a shift from intelligence to intelligences. No longer do we have a traditionalist view that recognises only a single ‘intelligence’ (usually related to linguistic or mathematical ability) and which varies in its development from person to person. Rather, we should see people as having multiple ‘intelligences’. Add to that the fact that people have different personalities, cultures, genders, etc, and you create a seriously intense environment for education and connection.

There are many tools that can help us get beyond this complexity – mainly these are frameworks which help us simplify, without becoming simplistic.

In the light of this, my thought is simply this: we should take these differences much more seriously when we plan a time of worship.

Worship leaders need to be equipped with a variety of different “frameworks” with which to be able to see the world. Their task is to try and see the world through as many eyes as possible, and construct a meaningful corporate experience that will draw as many people as possible, via as many different “intelligences” and by as many different routes as possible, to a common place of reference in their worship experience.

In this regard, I would highly recommend the Enneagram as a profiling tool. It is one of a number of personality profiling tools available, but I happen to think it is one of the best, that really gets to deep levels of understanding of people’s drivers and motivators.

If we take the nine different “types” into account as we prepare worship (or as we prepare a sermon), we may not be able to “hit” each of them with bulls-eye accuracy, but I think we will become significantly better in our leadership roles.

For easy reference, the nine personality types listed by the Enneagram are:

1. Need to be perfect
   
2. Need to be needed
   
3. Need to succeed
   
4. Need to be unique
   
5. Need to know
   
6. Need to be secure
   
7. Need to avoid pain
   
8. Need to confront
   
9. Need to avoid conflict

I believe that leaders in future church will take these types of frameworks (specifically those that attempt to understand human development) and use them to great effect in crafting all forms of communication with people.

(PS, for those who know the Enneagram, I think the traditional church is dominated by 2′s, 3′s and 6′s. You can also see different denominations and movements characterised by a single dominant personality type).

My original post had this excellent addition by way of a comment from “StevenL”:

Hi Graeme, et al.

Gordon MacDonald (Forging a real world faith) talks about leading instincts of the soul and how we are called to serve one another by allowing different styles in worship. I have found it helpful to try to include these “worship languages” when planning and leading worship. They are:

The Aesthetic Instinct (majesty) – David
- architecture is important
- symbols of the sanctuary
- seeks to be overwhelmed and impressed by majesty and infinitude of God
- David’s mandate to Solomon (1 Chron 22: 19-20)

The Experiential Instinct (joy) – Simon Peter
- throws himself into things
- meet God and speak to Him in ‘street’ language
- responsive to the Holy Spirit and the energy He promises to give
- Peter and his many impetuous moments; do it with feeling

The Activist instinct (achievement) – Moses
- Christ-following activity is service
- See the world in desperate need of change
- Get something done that fits into the missionary purposes of Heaven
- Moses (kills a guard; engagement in liberation)

The Contemplative instinct (listening) – John the Baptist (wilderness to public)
- meet God in the quiet of his inner life
- pay attention to how we intersect with God through the spiritual disciplines
- focus on prayer life; meditation
- John the Baptist moves from the wilderness to powerful public witness

The Student instinct (truth) – Paul
- be a constant searcher of the scripture (love for the truth)
- Sunday school, expository sermons, Bible study
- Insists on fervent, relentless examination so that faith will not be weak
- Paul: balance, but student predominant. Upside encourages study of the scripture; downside – opinionated, leads to confrontations over the truth

The Relational instinct (love) – Barnabas
- love for people
- God is present when people bond together in fellowship, worship, mutual support
- Heartbroken at conflict, exhilarated when people overcome barriers
- Barnabas: takes John Mark under his wing.

Related posts:

1. The seven streams of church – a sermon podcast

Every now and again I’ll do a quick overview of my favourite posts – and that can act as a nice introduction for new readers and a navigation tool for those who want to “catch up” with some of the thinking and conversations on this blog.

The purpose of this blog is to help Christians and those seeking faith to find new ways to think about what it means to be a Christ follower. I have been writing and blogging on this topic since 1995, and this blog includes a selection of new and old stuff I have been working on. Some of it I’d die for, but some of it is purely experimental (I try and let you know which is which). The point is not to present a fully worked through systematic theology, but rather to allow you to enter into an ongoing conversation with me. If you like, this is just my journal – and you get to look in…

So, with that said, here is a brief intro to some of the posts on this blog:

• The Transformation Gospel vs the Gospel of Evacuation – I first heard this analogy at a conference in Uganda a few years ago. It is remarkable, and has shaped my thinking since.
  
• The Present Future – a book review and summary of a remarkable book on what the church should be doing
  
• The marks of a genuine Christian – reflections on a sermon
  
• Living in an age of transition
  

You will find this blog coming back over and over again to our responsibility to social issues, and especially to poverty, development and social justice. Here is a sample:

• The poor you will always have with you
  
• Jesus and the “Social Gospel” – by Dr Reg Codrington (my father)
  

This obviously impacts on what the church is meant to be doing:

• Church is not the end, it’s the means
  
• Five Things Every Adult Christian Should Know About Youth Ministry
  
• Gary Hamel speaks to church leaders on Shifting Tides
  
• The Challenge of an Ageing Population
  
• Generations @ Church – understanding different generations is a passion and area of expertise of mine
  

And on theological issues:

• Salvation for all?
  
• Some Thoughts on Hell
  

I have a passion for helping people to read the Bible properly, and develop helpful hermeneutics:

• Confessions of a Bible Deist
  
• Taking the Bible Literally
  
• A fun example of the human side of Biblical inspiration
  
• How can we change ingrained mistakes in our Bible reading?

That’s a brief intro. There’s lot to read and discuss – join the conversation.

And stick around. We’ll head into fun waters soon. I plan to start looking at the issue of homosexuality over the next few months.

Related posts:

1. What the Incarnation Means for the Church
2. Cheap Grace
3. A New Kind of Christianity – Brian McLaren’s latest book

This article was written in April 1996, when I was a theological student. It was a review of the arguments in relation to women leadership in the church. The Baptist Union that I was a part of at that time had a very ambiguous view on the issue, and as a student I was trying to show that an alternative to the traditional “no women leaders” view was possible while still remaining Biblical. Looking at it now, I was obviously constrained by a hefty word count limit, but still think I touched on all the right issues. Maybe one day I’ll get the time to flesh this out…

A theological and Biblical exposition of the role of women and their relationship to men within the church, with special reference to authority and teaching.

1. Introduction

The role of women is an issue of vital importance to us today, not only as this issue is tearing churches apart, but also because of the large number of women actively pursuing ministry opportunities in churches. The doctrine of humanity as espoused in Scripture is the basis of any solution to whether women are allowed to teach and have authority (i.e. lead) in local churches. This issue is intricately bound up with the general issue of women’s submission to men and male authority, especially within marriage.

This assignment will deal only with general human relationships and marriage where it has a direct bearing on the issue of women teaching and leading in the church.

2. Approach of This Assignment

Realising that the traditional conservative position of not allowing women to teach or have authority in the local church has been defended from Scripture for many decades, I will not concentrate on defending this view. Neither will I attempt to totally discredit it. What I wish to do is to show the possibility of alternative interpretations, while remaining true to Scripture, that would allow women to teach and lead in a church. In doing so, I shall highlight arguments on both sides, indicating their strengths and weaknesses, and hopefully in the process, demonstrate the consistent witness of Scripture. This assignment is based loosely on a response to Piper and Grudem’s book (see bibliography below).

3. Foundations: Four Phases of Human Spiritual History



3.1. The Creation Accounts

Genesis tells us that when God had created humanity (male and female) it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). An understanding of humanity in its pre-fallen state is essential to an understanding of what God intended us to be, and to an understanding of the NT passages that refer to the principles established in Gen. 1- 3. Jewett, in a discussion on Barth’s approach to this issue, makes an important point: the true essence of humanity is not found in the creation of man or woman, but humanity as man and woman (Gen. 1:27). The true essence of humanity cannot be found in just one of the genders, but in being as “being-in-fellowship” (1975:49). This means that humanity, although represented in two specific and separate genders, is nevertheless defined by both genders. A society where only one gender existed would be an incomplete society. Thus, both man and woman were created in the image of God, and both had a full relationship with God, as they had a relationship with each other.



3.2. The Fall

The sin of Adam and Eve changed the world forever. The nature of humanity and the relationships therein were radically changed. “The unity and equality expressed so clearly in [Genesis] chapter 1 is replaced by the authority of one over the other. Sin has spoiled not only the spiritual relationship between creator and creature but has also affected the social relationships between men and women” (Carey, in Furlong 1984:45; cf. Schaeffer 1972:94).



3.3. Redemption Through Christ

The total curse of sin and the law has been fully removed (cf. Rom. 5:12 -21, Gal. 3:10 – 14; Rev. 22:3). That curse is the curse that separated man from God in the Garden of Eden. Christ’s death secured the permanent removal of all that separates us from God and from each other. This is a glorious, victorious truth that is at the heart of our Christianity. Yet, the effects of sin and the work of Satan have been allowed by God to continue in the world, until the victory is enforced when Christ returns. Thus, we live today in a constant tension between the “now” (of a world still affected by the Fall) and the “not yet” (of the full effects of Christ’s redeeming grace).

3.4. Eschatological Anticipation

It may be helpful, too, to attempt to understand what heaven will be like, for we know that in heaven we will be perfect. Since the state of being in perfection is the highest state a being can attain, it must also be the ideal role model, remembering, however that we live and function in a different sphere at present.

4. The Role of Tradition and Church History

Weinrich claims that women in the history of the church have been “learned and holy, but not pastors” (in Piper and Grudem 1991:263ff.). Tucker and Liefeld, however, endeavour throughout their book to show that “historically, women have had far more involvement in the church’s mission and other ministries than has generally been realised” (1987:435). In any case, this should not be a decisive factor in our discussion. Where tradition is contrary to Scripture, it is tradition that must change. As society develops, the church must always be open to adjustment and development, within the parameters of Scripture.

5. Headship, Submission and Subordination Within and Without Marriage

As a precursor to this discussion, it should be noted that Scripture clearly starts its teaching on marriage with a call to mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). Elsewhere, mutual authority is taught (1 Cor. 7:1 – 5; cf. Col. 3:16) (cf. Haubert 1993:57). Nevertheless, there are other principles which arise from various texts.



5.1. The Husband’s Role: Godly Headship

Eph. 5:23 tells us that the husband is the head (Gr. kefalh) of the wife. There is much debate as to what headship means (cf. Grudem, Piper and Grudem 1991:127f.; 425ff.), especially as it is equated with Christ’s headship over the church. The two main viewpoints are that headship means either “authority over” or it means “source”. Grudem seems to have answered most of the objections, and convincingly argues that the meaning is “authority”. His argument, however, seems to ignore the point that a word can mean different things in different contexts. Various passages will be discussed below, some where “source” is obviously unacceptable, but others where it seems to be an exegetical option.



In Eph. 5, however, it seems that “authority” would be the correct translation, as the wife is told to submit, and it would be difficult to see how Christ could be the “source” of the church, or the husband, the “source” of the wife. So, “the debate continues, but both sides agree that the NT’s teaching on headship must never be used as a prop to support chauvinist sexism” (Olthuis 1995:430). The emphasis is always on self-sacrificing, loving, servant-leadership, based on the example of Christ (Phil. 2:5 – 11; cf. Field, in Lees 1984:55).



5.2. The Wife’s Role: Godly Submission

Many of the supporters of woman ordination have claimed that Scripture teaches the subordination of women (e.g. Jewett 1975:58f.; 73f., etc.). This may have arisen through an incorrect understanding of the King James Version word “subjection” in describing the wife (translating Gr. FWBEW). However, they need to be more careful to distinguish between subordination and submission. Subordination, being the subservience of the women, is never taught in Scripture, and should not influence the debate.



It is interesting that, in Scripture, the wife is always addressed first when the nature of the husband-wife relationship is discussed (cf. Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 2:4f.), indicating possibly that she is to take the “lead” (the first step, initiation) in the relationship of headship-submission. The wife is instructed to submit to her husband. The Greek word for “submit” (Gr. hupotassw – in the middle voice) is used in all the passages, and implies a voluntary putting of oneself under another (Knight, in Piper and Grudem 1991:166). This makes sense, as there is no intrinsic superiority of either the male or female, but the women must voluntarily place herself, not where she is by right (equal), but under, her husband. This is re-enforced in 1 Peter 3:1 – 7 (cf. Grudem, in Piper and Grudem 1991:194ff.), although the specific context of a non-believing husband should be noted.



5.3. Relationships Outside of Marriage and Single People

The passages discussed above exhort wives to be subject to “your own” (Gr. idio”) husbands, and similarly, the husbands must love their wives. This term, “your own”, clearly shows that the relationship of headship and submission between a wife and her husband is different from the relationship of headship and submission which they may have with other people in general. “Paul is not insisting that every relationship between a woman and a man is one of submission and headship” (Knight, in Piper and Grudem 1991:169; cf. pg. 44).

6. Marriage as an Analogy of the Church

Having established a pattern for relationships within marriage, how are the husband and wife to relate to each other in other settings, outside the home? In addition, how do this pattern of headship and submission relate to the church, which has unmarried people and “other-married” people? Marriage is used as an analogy of the church throughout Scripture (in fact, that was what it was designed to be, cf. Eph. 5:31 – 32; Knight, in Piper and Grudem 1991:175f.), but this does not necessarily mean that what applies to marriage, also applies to the church.



Some would argue that “male leadership in the family requires male leadership in the church” (cf. Poythress, in Piper and Grudem 1991:233ff.). The crux of this belief is that 1 Tim. 3:15 refers to the church as “God’s household”. In addition, it is argued that elders or overseers are to be men who are the “husbands of but one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). This argument is weak and circular (using an implication of the argument to prove the argument). Applying it properly would mean that all church leaders must be married. In fact, they must all be married with children. If we cannot draw these inferences, then neither can we draw a male-only inference.



It would seem that the only transferral of marital roles to the church is the relationship of husband and wife within church life. Scripture is clear that family life extends to the church as well. It should be noted in this regard, that children who were Christians were totally equal with their parents, yet nevertheless had to maintain a relationship of honour and respect (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:1 – 2), and similarly with slaves and masters. So, too, a wife who must submit to her husband at home, must do the same at church. Beyond this principle, there does not seem to be adequate grounds for transferring male headship at home to influence the structure of the church, where Christ assumes the headship function.

7. Texts Specifically Prohibiting Women from Teaching or Leading

A very important initial observation must be made. In Greek, the term “man” can be used generically for “mankind”, thus including both male and female. In addition, the Greek word for “woman” and for “wife” (gunh) are exactly the same, and similarly, Greek has one word for “man” and “husband” (anhr). The correct translated term is discovered only on investigation of the context. Every single passage that restricts women from teaching men can be placed in the context of marriage, and thus could legitimately read, “I do not permit a wife to teach her husband”. These passages are: 1 Cor. 11:3 (is every woman subject to every man, or are wives subject to their husbands, just as Christ is the bridegroom of the church, His bride?); 1 Cor. 14:34 – 35 (obviously a marriage relationship); and 1 Tim. 2:11 – 15 (Adam and Eve are the marital role models, and how could any woman, except a wife, be given promises regarding child birth?).



It is conceivable then that all of these passages are referring to spiritual authority and leadership within the home, and how this should be expressed between a husband and wife in the public life of the church. It may have nothing to do with instructions regarding women in general. The fact that the gifts have no specific gender requirements placed on them, thus allowing women to receive the gifts of prophecy, preaching, teaching, pastoring, leadership, etc., would seem to add weight to this point of view (see below). Let us examine each of these passages in more detail:

7.1. 1 Corinthians 11:2 – 16

The issue of headship has been discussed above. Assuming the word kefalh means “authority” in 1 Cor. 11:3, Paul is arguing that man is the head of “the woman” (notice the definite article and the singular form) as Christ is the head of man and God the head of Christ (this seems to mitigate against the use of “source” for kefalh in this context). “Since Paul appeals to the relation between members of the Trinity, it is clear that he does not view the relations described here as merely cultural, or the result of the fall” (Schreiner, in Piper and Grudem 1991:128). Notice, however, that by referring to the Trinity, Paul consciously draws our attention to beings-in-fellowship, reminding us of Genesis 2, and the first couple who “for this reason” were the first marital pair. This principle is the key to the whole passage.



It should be noticed that nowhere in this passage does Paul forbid a woman to teach or lead in the church. In fact, he is saying the very opposite by giving instructions for the involvement of women in the church service, saying that she should do whatever she does in the church in a respectful and humble spirit – a ruling that applies equally to all Christians. There is no Biblical basis for assuming that whenever Scripture refers to a women prophesying or teaching, that she does so outside of the church congregation (cf. MacArthur 1994:39f.). “Distinctions between ‘official’ and ‘non-official’ teaching are difficult to substantiate in the New Testament” (Haubert 1993:65, and footnote).



Some scholars have argued that the phrase “authority on her head” (literal translation of 11:10) means that women must be under the authority of the men in the church. If this is what Paul intended, it seems unlikely that he would have used such an idiomatic phrase, or that he would refer to the angels. Whatever the correct interpretation of these phrases is, it is not unambiguously endorsing female submission in terms of not being able to lead or teach within the church. Paul, himself, anticipates some misunderstanding and so 1 Cor. 11:11 – 12 is an expression of what he has just been saying regarding the equality of the status and giftedness of men and women.



Thus, although Paul does advocate gender distinctions in the manner in which certain gifts are exercised, he nevertheless encourages men and women alike to exercise the gifts God has given them. Like (the very conservative) Mack (1972:60), I cannot find in these verses a prohibition on women teaching or leading in the church.



7.2. 1 Corinthians 14:34 – 36

On the face of it, this passage contradicts Paul’s statements elsewhere (most problematically, in the same letter, 1 Cor. 11) regarding the fact that women could speak, pray and prophesy in the congregation. Leaving the text critical arguments aside, the most compelling interpretation is that these verses refer to the process by which prophecies were weighed (cf. Carson, in Piper and Grudem 1991:151ff.). This interpretation best fits the exegetical context, both in terms of flow and structure (especially 1 Cor. 14:29 – 33). It would seem then that Paul is only prohibiting women being involved in the oral weighing of prophecies. Additional proof of this is that the silence (Gr. sigatw) required in verse 34 also applies to prophets and tongue speakers in verses 28 and 30 – it is not only related to women. This was not, as some have suggested, because only church leaders could weigh prophecies and women were not allowed to be leaders. If Paul had intended that, he would have also included all males who were not church leaders in this prohibition.



Nearly all of the commentators agree that Paul was writing to a church which was fighting an heretical onslaught, and was giving instructions that would result in sound teaching by restraining all unqualified teachers (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3 – 5). Some commentators have argued that because women were untaught in those times, Paul forbade them to teach (e.g. Haubert 1993:64; Carey, in Furlong 1984:53f.). The obvious implication is that in cultures where women are educated, they can teach. This seems unlikely, however, as it is not a proven fact that women were uneducated in the prevailing Roman culture of Ephesus, and further, if this was Paul’s intention, it would seem that when writing to a busy sea port, he would have included in this prohibition those men who were uneducated and not able to teach.



Verse 35, therefore, seems to be the key to understanding this passage. It unambiguously states that the women referred to are wives. Thus, it would seem that Paul is prohibiting wives from weighing their husband’s prophecies, and if they have a problem with “their own” husband’s prophecies, this should be discussed at home. There are three very logical reasons for this: the church service is not to be disrupted by domestic squabbling; the wife is to submit to her own husband’s authority in all aspects of their marriage relationship, including church; and, a prophecy’s validity could be established two witnesses. If the husband and wife were to conspire to give a false testimony, it would be easy for them to do so, if the wife were allowed to weigh her husband’s prophecy. Once again, therefore, there is room to doubt the traditional interpretation of this passage.



7.3. 1 Timothy 2:11 – 15

The first aspect of this passage that bears attention is the usage of the word “man”. There are a number of translation options, depending on the underlying Greek word. We would surely not think that only males are going to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4, 6), or that only men should pray (2:8)? Contrary to MacArthur’s claim (1994:112), the terms anqropo” and andro”, used in these verses, can refer either to males or to human beings generically (Louw and Nida 1989:104).



The injunction in verse 11, that women are to “learn” (Gr. manthanetw) implies that they are to be discipled (cf. Gr. mathmth”). This was a new concept to those with a Jewish background, where women were not taught at all. However, they are to learn in “submission” (Gr. upotagh – the noun form of the word that describes a wife’s relationship to her husband). In addition, they are not to have “authority” (Gr. authentein) over men. This particular Greek word occurs only here in the NT. Some believe that it is simply a synonym for the normal Greek words for authority (cf. Knight 1992:141f.; Tucker and Liefeld 1987:460). However, most of the lexicons indicate that it is more forceful, implying “to control in a domineering manner” (Louw and Nida 1989:474). Paul is therefore not forbidding women to have authority, but rather counselling them not to dominate.

Whichever interpretation is preferred, there is one final difficulty that is often ignored. It would seem that, since Paul refers to the woman being “kept safe through childbirth” (1 Tim. 2:15), he is, once again, referring to a husband and wife relationship in the church (it would seem impossible to assume that Paul was referring to unmarried women in this verse), and not to male-female relationships in general. Thus, Paul is forbidding a wife to teach or have authority over (dominate?) her husband in the church setting. This is entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching on a wife’s submission to her husband.



It should be noticed that 1 Tim. 2:13 – 14 bases Paul’s argument in creation order. If Paul intended us to understand that all women are easily deceived and that is why they should not teach, why then does he allow them to teach children and other women (1 Tim. 1:5; 3:14 – 15; Titus 2:3 – 4)? They should not be allowed to teach anyone in the church (cf. Haubert 1993:66).



Some scholars, who would take these verses to prohibit women teaching, weaken their own argument by defining such teaching as “preaching” or the “teaching of Bible and doctrine”, but leaving out of their definition “evangelistic witnessing, counseling, [and] teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine” (Moo, in Piper and Grudem 1991:186). They further weaken their position when they try to define what a “man” is, often saying that women can teach male children in Sunday School, not realising that in Jewish culture, boys became men at the age of 13.



Although these verses present us with some translation difficulties, it would seem that once again the wording is ambiguous. Most scholars attempt to understand what is meant in these verses by an appeal to the passages in 1 Cor., discussed above. This often results in a particularly dangerous form of circular reasoning, as they use this passage to prove their interpretations of 1 Cor. (MacArthur, Mack, and Piper and Grudem are all guilty of this).

8. Other Biblical Arguments Against Women Teaching and Leading

Briefly stated, this argument posits that because God created Adam, and then later created Eve, the very order of creation is that the man is head (cf. Ortlund, in Piper and Grudem 1991:102). This argument is invalid on a number of levels: (i) We have no hint in Scripture that male and female are on different levels spiritually (or “before God”), in fact, we are told the very opposite (e.g. Gal. 3:28).; (ii) Some may then argue that the order of creation had to do with function, not status. However, there is no mention in Scripture that Adam and Eve had different functions in the Garden. We find them both communing with God, and both being charged with stewardship of the garden (cf. “them” in Gen. 1:26, 28); (iii) The argument is logically flawed: if a consistent hierarchy based on creation is to be maintained, then whichever way the Genesis accounts are interpreted, we reach invalid conclusions. From Gen. 1 we find that man and woman are lower than the other created beings. If from Gen. 2, man was created before the animals, then woman is lower than the animals, and man higher. If from both accounts, the order is reversed, so that man is higher than the animals, because he is created after them, then Eve is higher than Adam (see also 8.2. below).



8.2. “Man” as God’s Name for Humanity

This argument seems puerile in the extreme. It states that when God was searching for a term to describe both male (Heb. rkz) and female (Heb. hbqnW) humanity in Gen. 1:26 – 28, He chose “man” (Heb. !da), which “whispers male headship” (Ortlund, in Piper and Grudem 1991:98). Four simple answers are sufficient: (i) The word used for “man” when referring to humanity is different from the word “man” referring to a male being; (ii) Scripture is God’s truth revealed through the mechanism of human language and idiom. In Genesis, we are linguistically further removed from the actual event of creation by Babel. Therefore, when God revealed this truth to the author of Genesis, he did so in Jewish language and idiom, which used the same word for “humanity” and “man” (as do many modern languages); (iii) does the fact, then, that God reveals Himself as a rock (e.g. Gen. 49:24; Deut. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:32; Matt. 16:18, etc.) or a hen (Matt. 23:37), or many other morphic analogies, tell us anything about God’s intrinsic nature? Obviously not; and, (iv) If the fact that humanity is called “man” in the OT is an indication of male headship, then is the fact that the church is the ekklesia (feminine noun) and the “bride” of Christ an indication of female headship in the NT?



8.3. A “Help-Meet” from Adam’s Rib

Eve was made as a “helper” for Adam. Scripture literally calls her “suitable” (KJV – “meet”) for Adam. Many scholars argue that this implies Adam’s authority over her, but battle to explain away the fact that the word for “helper” (Heb. rz[) is most often used of God helping humanity (cf. Holladay 1988:270; Haubert 1993:14 and footnote). In fact, of the 21 OT uses of this word, the 19 that do not appear in relation to women in Gen. 2, all unambiguously refer to a superior helping an inferior. We should not, however, go so far as to conclude that women are superior (although this could be a logical deduction), because the phrase "corresponding to him" is added (Heb. wdgnk), indicating a correspondence or equality. "Significantly, too, there is no suggestion that she is a helper in a particular way, as the bearer of children (Augustine) or the keeper of the home, to speak of the two most common feminine stereotypes" (Jewett 1975:124).



8.4. The Naming of Eve by Adam

There are two instances when Adam is said to have named the woman/Eve (Gen. 2:23; 3:20). Most commentators agree that the power to name something implied authority over it in Jewish culture (e.g. Field, in Lees 1984:48). The difficulty with this, is that Adam appears to name his wife twice. The solution is simple: in Gen. 2:23, Adam does not actually name Eve, he simply identifies her type - she is "woman" for she comes from "man" (the type, or genus). It is only after the Fall and the pronouncement of the punishment that he actually gives her a name (Gen. 3:20), claiming the authority (and domination) just pronounced. This seems to indicate that an enforced authority is part of the fallen state of humanity.

8.5. Eve Was The Sinner, Not Adam

It has been argued by many scholars that Eve’s sin was the usurping of Adam’s headship role, and that Adam’s sin was "listening to his wife" (Gen. 3:17) (e.g. Ortlund, in Piper and Grudem 1991:107; MacArthur 1994:21). This would seem to be going beyond what Scripture says, as neither the OT or NT mention this as the problem. The sin was disobeying God’s command. Gen. 3:6 makes it clear that Adam was with Eve during the temptation, and presumably was enticed by the deceiver as well. However, in 1 Tim. 2:14, Paul seemingly uses Eve’s sin as a reason for women remaining silent in the church. This verse was discussed above. Suffice it to say, that Scripture is absolutely clear elsewhere when it ascribes the sin to Adam. In fact, this is the crux of Paul’s argument in Rom. 5:14 - 15; 15:45. It would thus seem difficult to support this argument about the first sin being the "sin" of sexual role reversal.



8.6. The "Curse" On Man and Woman

An argument in favour of the fact that Christ’s redemption has not removed the headship of husbands and the submission of women pronounced in Gen. 3, is that Christ’s redemption removed the "curse" (Gal. 3:13), but neither Adam nor Eve were actually cursed. The wording of Gen. 3:14 - 19 indicates that the serpent and the ground were cursed, but the man and woman were simply told how sin had affected their situations. Thus, headship and submission are not curses, but pronouncements of structures God has put in place to preserve the institution of marriage in a sinful world. The fact that there will be no marriages in heaven (Matt. 22:30), and no clearly distinguishable masculine and feminine beings, also seems to indicate that these structures are temporary.



8.7. The Nature of the Godhead and the Incarnation

God is a fellowship of persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The distinction between the persons of the Trinity is personal, not sexual. Therefore, humanity is like God in the fellowship of persons, as man and woman. It has, nevertheless, been argued that the specifically masculine references to God throughout Scripture are an indication of male hierarchy in humanity. However, the masculine image of God is analogous in nature. In fact, there are also many references to feminine characteristics of God (e.g. Isa. 49:15; Luke 15:8 - 10, etc.). The important concept is that God is a personal being, but he is not male or female, and "therefore the Incarnation in the form of male humanity, though historically and culturally necessary, was not theologically necessary" (Jewett 1975:168 emphasis in original).



In addition, whenever Jesus is referred to in the NT, the Greek word, anqrwpo", which is a generic term that can mean "man" (male) or "human being" (male or female) is used, instead of specifically masculine terms.

8.8. Jesus Called Only Men as Disciples

If Jesus called only men, it is also true that he only called Jews who were free men. Therefore, this argument is completely nullified by the rest of the NT witness, in particular Gal. 3:28. Jesus had to work within the cultural constraints at the time he lived. In addition, if this fact was a guideline for male leadership, then why does no NT writer ever appeal to it?



8.9 Women are Genetically/Biological Inferior to Men

This argument, based on physical differences between men and women, applies these indisputable differences to the area of authority. Unfortunately for supporters of this theory, they have no Biblical basis for doing so (except perhaps 1 Peter 3:7, which talks of the "weaker" women, who are nevertheless "heirs with [men]“) (cf. Williams, in Furlong 1984:19f.). In addition, the logical extension of this argument would be that mentally impaired or physically disabled people would also be disqualified from ministry.

9. Other Arguments in Favour of Women Teaching and Leading

9.2. Jesus’ Attitude To Women

Jesus’ attitude towards women was nothing short of revolutionary. He had no difficulty in breaking every social taboo, including teaching women, conversing with them in public, having them as disciples and accepting their support. We must never lose sight of how exceptional this was in the light the culture of the day. “By thus honouring them he put woman on an equality with man, demanding the same standard from both sexes and offering the same way of salvation” (Beeching 1982:1259).



9.3. The Role of Women in Paul’s Ministry and Paul’s Attitude To Women

Paul clearly saw women as “fellow labourers” with him (Rom. 16). Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) was a deacon (masculine word, indicating an official office), and Junia (Rom. 16:7) was either an apostle herself, or highly revered by the apostles (the interpretation is unclear, although the former is probably to be preferred). If the above arguments are accepted, it would seem that Paul’s message was consistent: the marriage relationship is characterised by love and mutual submission, with male headship; and the church is characterised by every member ministry under the headship of Christ.



9.4. Spiritual Gifts are Not Gender-Specific

When Paul lists the spiritual gifts, he places no gender requirements on the receipt of any of the gifts (cf. especially 1 Cor. 12:28; MacArthur 1994:145). These gifts were clearly meant for all Christians, irrespective of age, race, culture or gender (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; 14:26). Within the NT there are many examples of women exercising these different gifts. Women were in leadership positions (e.g. Acts 16:15; 18:26; Rom. 16:1, 7), they prophesied (e.g. Luke 2:36; Acts 2:17; 21:9), pastored (cared for) the congregation (e.g. Rom. 16:1, 6, 13; 1 Tim. 5:16), preached and taught (Priscilla in Acts 18:2, Rom. 16:3), were actively involved in worship in the church (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:5, 13), and in many other ways served the church, exercising their gifts.



It would seem strange that, if the NT authors wanted to restrict the use of any gifts to males only, they did not specify this when they were formally listing the gifts, and did not make negative references to those women who were already performing works of service using these gifts. In fact, Paul does place some restrictions on the use of spiritual gifts, especially in 1 Corinthians 12 -14. His main restrictions are: that the gifts are for mutual edification (12:7), that everyone is to treat everyone else with honour because all gifts come from God (12:22 – 25), that they should be exercised only in love (1 Cor. 13:1 – 3; 14:1), and that they should be exercised in an orderly fashion in the public life of the church (14:33). None of these restrictions can in any way be twisted to provide for a “males only” approach. Women are therefore equally capable of receiving any spiritual gifts, and should not be restricted from using them in the local church context.

9.5. The Sting In The Tail of “Cultural Relativity”

Those who would have us believe that the underlying principles of male headship and female submission within the church are clearly taught by Paul, although Paul applies it to culturally specific situations which are no longer valid, have opened themselves up for a decisive blow. If their theory is true, then they have proved too much, and must accept women leaders and teachers in our churches today. Underlying their thought is the assumption that women (especially in Corinth) were exercising their new Christian freedom in culturally unacceptable ways, which even equated them with the cults of the city and with temple prostitutes. Thus Paul says they should respect the culture of the day, and not offend anyone. Actually, this is a principle Paul uses often (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:18; 8:9ff.; 10:23ff.; 11:14, etc.).



Paul is saying that Christians should be sensitive to the cultural surrounds in which they live. Therefore, whereas women in leadership was culturally unacceptable in Paul’s day, it is acceptable (even desirable) in our culture today. Would Paul therefore not instruct us to consider women for teaching and leadership positions if he wrote to us, in our culture, today?



9.6. The “Double Standard” of Women Missionaries

A final point is the fact that most of the commentators who would restrict a women teaching or leading in a local church, recognise the tremendous missionary endeavours performed by women throughout the world. In order to accommodate this, they formulate policies which allow women to start organisations where no men are present, and counsel them to hand over to men as soon as possible. Even in the declaration of this issue made by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (cf. Piper and Grudem 1991:469ff.), there is a proviso (affirmation 9) which allows women to be involved in teaching and leading. This seems to compromise what these people feel is a deep rooted Biblical and creation principle. In the light of what they have previously said, this compromise would seem unacceptable. We need to be honest enough to accept the full implications of what we believe.

10. The Ordination of Women

By “ordination”, we mean the formal recognition to the office of ministry. Fortunately, within Baptist churches, this issue is not separate and additional to the issues of teaching and leading, for, unlike the more liturgical churches, where the priest somehow functions as a mediator between God and men, Baptists believe in the priesthood of all believers. Thus, if we agree that Scripture permits a woman to teach and lead, then we must agree that she can be ordained.

11. Conclusion

In this brief overview of some of the issues that need to be resolved, it has become obvious that Scripture clearly teaches that there is authority and submission involved in some relationships. Although all people are equal in the eyes of God, both in their sinful state and in the state of grace, there are differences in function. However, all Christians are called to serve one another, and be in submission to one another, by willingly considering others better than oneself. The church should be characterised by mutual love and submission, thus engendering an environment where each one is able to fully develop and utilise his or her God-given spiritual gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.

Colwell, J. E. “Anthropology” In New Dictionary of Theology. pp 28ff. Eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, and David F. Wright. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988 (cited below as NDT).

Conn, H. M. “Feminist Theology” In NDT. pp 255ff.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. One Volume Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

Field, D. H. “Sexuality” In NDT. pp 637-639.

Foulkes, Francis. Ephesians. Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series. Revised Edition. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989.

Furlong, Monica, ed. Feminine In The Church. London: SPCK, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Revised Edition. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.

Haubert, Katherine M. Women As Leaders: Accepting the Challenge of Scripture. Monrovia: MARC, 1993.

Hendriksen, William. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. New Testament Commentary Series. British Edition. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972a.

______. Ephesians. New Testament Commentary Series. British Edition. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972b.

______. Romans. Single Volume, Banner of Truth Edition. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

______. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Combined British Volume. Edinburg: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983.

Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of The Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Lees, Shirley, ed. The Role of Women. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984.

Leupold, H.C. Exposition of Genesis: Volume 1. London: Evangelical Press, 1942.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary Series. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary Series. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, (Eds.). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Two Volumes. South African Edition. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1989.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Different By Design. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1994.

Mack, Wayne. The Role of Women in the Church. Cherry Hill: Mack Publishing Company, 1972.

May, Melanie A. (Ed.) Women and Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Meilaender, G C., Jr. “Sexuality” In NDCEPT. pp 71 – 78.

Olthuis, J. H. “Headship” In NDCEPT. p 430.

______. “Marriage” In NDCEPT. pp 565-568.

Pattinson, W. D. A Digest of the Second Report by the House of Bishops (Document GS Misc 337 of the General Synod of the Church of England). London: Church Publishing House, 1990.

Perschbacher, Wesley J., (Ed.). The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.

Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Time and Space. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Schillebeeckx, Edward. Ministry: A Case for Change. Trans. John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1981.

Soskice, Janet Martin (Ed.). After Eve. Women and Religion Series. London: Marshall Pickering, 1990.

Stott, John. Issues Facing Christians Today. Second Edition. London: Marshall Pickering, 1990.

Tucker, Ruth A., and Walter Liefeld. Daughters of the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Wallace, R. S. “Man” In NBD. pp 731ff.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1 – 15. Word Biblical Commentaries. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Related posts:

1. Why Men Can’t Lead – and faulty logic about women in leadership
2. Gary Hamel speaks to church leaders on Shifting Tides
3. Liberal politics, freedom and the role of Christianity in Britain

This paper was originally published in 2003 in the Baptist Journal of Theology (South Africa). It has not been updated – some of the website references in the footnotes may be out of date.

The paper was a collaboration between Dr Sharlene Swartz (read her bio at LinkedIn or in her current position as HSRC researcher) and Dr Graeme Codrington.

Challenges Facing South African Baptist Youth Ministry in the 21st Century

A Crash Course in Post Modernism

It’s all around us. But most of us can’t concisely describe it. It’s the philosophy of the age which follows modernism. Modernism is basically the world view which drew the line between science and religion, faith and superstition, truth and veracity. It demanded technical, scientific answers to questions of faith and science. Non-ending proofs and evidence. Modernism required that everything be rational, observable and repeatable. It was in one sense a return to the scholasticism of the thirteenth century but without a supreme deity as its anchor. “God does not exist until proven otherwise” could be a foundational principle for its atheists, although Christianity too flourished in the modernist milieu. For modernists, the truth exists objectively; things must be explainable, we must be able to demonstrate and understand it. Modernism takes it as axiomatic that there is only one true answer to every problem, from which it follows that if we can correctly formulate those answers, the world could be controlled and rationally ordered. That’s why we grew up on Creation – Evolution debates, Disco (very tangible beat and structured dance form), long theological debates, proving the existence of God and cerebral reasoning. Modernism has ruled supreme in Western thought for the last 500 years. But since its beginning, a new approach has been gathering momentum, and as this century ends, it claims dominant position, not only in the intellectual corridors of power, but is pervasive throughout society in all corners of the globe.

Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism ¹. It is a direct descendant of the existentialism of the late nineteenth century – where the affective took precedence over the cognitive. It has gained a firm foothold since the late 1960s. Although it is very difficult to find a simple, concise definition, it is characterised by freedom of choice, rejection of creeds, and a complete agnosticism with regards to truth. In fact at the heart of postmodernism is an aversion to precise definitions and formulae. Instead our life experience (including faith) must “make me feel good” and must “connect with my life experience”. My “story” must matter. How I respond is just as important as the tenet of faith itself. My faith must stand questioning, but not having answers is OK. “It must work”. That’s why drugging, New Age, experience, smart drugs, raving, identity in music, experiential learning are currently in vogue, at the close of the twentieth century.

THE CHALLENGES

So why a crash course in postmodernism? Because it is the world view that is defining next century’s generation of young people (to whom we will refer as Generation 21) – young people who are going to be…

1. Post Christian

For the past 500 years, Judeao-Christian morality has been the basis of “common decency” which everyone has taken for granted. Although Christianity’s truth claims have been questioned, most people have at least had some grounding in Christianity before asking such questions. Most people who have rejected Christianity have at least known what they were rejecting. But it is not so today. “We have grandparents who had a Christian belief, parents who have a memory of that belief, and now kids who have nothing”². This comment was made of present-day American culture. The situation is thankfully not yet this bad in South Africa, but current research into South African youth culture by Bill Price and Associates is showing that it is most certainly going to be true fairly soon³. Although 86% of young people in South Africa would align themselves with Christianity, and 83% of young people consider spirituality to be “important” in their lives, only 52% were able to indicate the basis of their beliefs, and just less than half of those young people claiming to be Christians attended church youth groups more than once a month.

Recent research by Jurgens Hendriks⁴ indicates that in 1980, 77% of South Africa’s population associated themselves with a Christian Church. It has declined since then. The 1991 figure is 74.5%. Unfortunately, more recent figures are not yet readily available. The drop off is due to a considerable decline in church attendance by the white and coloured population groups. The percentage whites who associated with Christian churches dropped from 92% to 78%, and coloureds from 87% to 64%. In the black population group there was a steady growth from 27% in 1910 to 75% in 1980 and 77% in 1991. Denominationally, the trend is even more disturbing. Traditional denominations are losing members, on average 19% between 1980 and 1991. This decline is in spite of the tremendous growth of so called mega-churches in most of these denominations. The only growing group is that of the Independent Churches, which doubled their membership⁵.

Hendriks states that “we must realise that before 1994 the state was responsible for upholding Christian values. There were laws forbidding abortion, gambling, pornography, certain activities on a Sunday, etc. Local authorities endorsed these laws. Furthermore, Christian principles and biblical lessons were taught in schools. In the new dispensation the responsibility for upholding Christian values has been transferred from the state and secular authorities to believers and congregations”.

2. Post Charismatic

Cain and Kendall⁶ speak of a post Charismatic generation, rather than merely a meeting in the middle of the evangelical and Pentecostal/charismatic traditions – a new tradition that has both Word and Spirit, power and truth, spontaneity and orthodoxy. It is a prophetic word for the next generation. Most young people today already have experienced the life of the Spirit as a normal every day part of their Christianity – no longer is speaking in tongues an issue, or accepting a word of knowledge or laying on of hands to heal the sick. Ten years ago all these issues where buried in controversy. Not so on the eve of the third millennium – how much more so for Generation 21? This renewed interest in the move of the Spirit relates to a similar move amongst unchurched young people in a revived interest in the spiritual and the supernatural. For example, a quick flip through your TV guide will show the following in 1999: Buffy the Vampire slayer, X-files, Outer Limits, Touched by an Angel, Teen Angel (comedy), Nothing Sacred, First Wave, Sabrina the Teenage Witch (comedy), Father Ted (comedy), Mortal Kombat, Strange World, and Brimstone. This is not even to mention the spiritual themes in music, and of course, Hollywood movies.

3. Biblically Illiterate

A friend, ministering at a small church in KwaZulu-Natal, recently spoke to one of his congregation, letting her know that his sermon topic for the coming Sunday was on Samson and Delilah. A shocked look crossed her face, as she exclaimed: “That’s not in the Bible”. It turns out she thought is was part of Greek mythology. She is not alone. Pastors, youth workers, parents, teachers all complain of the same malaise – young people are functionally biblically illiterate. “They don’t memorise scripture like we did in the old days.”. “They don’t know the difference between a tenet from the Bible and a sonnet from Shakespeare”. Well the truth of the matter is – it is absolutely true. And it is what we have to contend with. Why, one may ask? Modernism lent itself to memorisation, rote learning, recall, focus, hard and long hours of learning, long school hours (including Sunday School) and great discipline (getting up early – spending hours in God’s word).

But the world has changed. Time has changed – the pace at which we live life has accelerated terrifically. We now have Outcomes Based Education, continuous assessment, interactive teaching and learning, more stimulation than ever before, more things to do, to read, to watch, to experience. These days young people are more often found quoting a pick up line from an Austin Powers movie than a poem or a bible verse. It is not going to change. Imagine Charles Spurgeon as a twelve year old. What did he do if not his Sunday School homework and school work? The world is different – twelve year olds today earn cash in their spare time, hang out with friends, play computer games, go to the movies, the mall, Imax, Ratanga Junction and play Sony Playstation games. On the other hand, why should one spend time memorising, when hand held computers contain easy-reference word-search Bible concordances in a multitude of versions. Why memorise when its on-line?

Instead of mourning the past lets capture the present and use it for the education in Christian values of young people according to the tenor of the times. Computer technology, narrative theology, non-didactic teaching methods and popular media like The Prince of Egypt should all be harnessed creatively. What is really needed is not memorisation of proof-texts, but rather a more expansive overview of God’s plan as shown in the Scriptures, providing a much needed moral and theological framework for today’s information-overloaded young people.

4. Info – crats

Young people in the twenty-first century will know more and have access to vastly greater quantities of information than ever before. They will have lots more information at their finger tips than those teaching them. Which means they will be less likely to accept authoritative and definitive answers. No longer will “Because I say so” suffice – specially when the “I” is an older person who can’t search Encyclopaedia Britannica online; isn’t a member of three email forums, doesn’t read nine daily newspapers from around the globe and doesn’t subscribe to six of the latest scientific and theological journals from universities as far afield as Boston and Bangkok. Let’s face it, how many of us can do that already? Generation 21 have had a jump start – while anyone currently over thirty is still playing catch up when it comes to Information Technology. Just think who is most capable of programming the household VCR if you don’t believe that today it is the young people who are more geared up for the next century than their parents ever will be.

One of the downsides of this information overload is that these new generation info-crats appear to have an ever decreasing attention span. This is not entirely true, as they are able to concentrate for much longer than many adults – but they cannot focus on one topic for very long. They flit from one TV channel to the next, watching three or more shows simultaneously. They are capable of doing their homework with both TV and radio blaring in the background. They accept information in “sound bites”, and their music and media is equally fast paced in its visual presentation. Communication is multi-threaded to them, and interactive multi-media is king. They don’t know what a flannel graph or a chalkboard is; and they have only ever known CDs and now DVD. Computer presentations are the norm.

Long one way sermons will no longer communicate. Instead methods need to be innovative, short and interactive. Methods like Groome’s⁷ shared Christian praxis and Cooperative Learning⁸ are the way of the future.

5. Unrecognisable Worshippers

Both personal and corporate worship are going to change. For Generation 21 outward appearance is not going to be a measure of spirituality. Postmodernism is characterised by paradox, especially in its expression. This will be most fully seen in worship, which to truly touch postmodern Christians will need to be eclectic. Individuality in the midst of community will be paramount in worship. We need to be prepared to facilitate this. The Soul Survivor⁹ movement in the UK is a good example of this. The fact that many Black churches, whose white counterparts would be very conservative, are mostly Pentecostal and Charismatic in practice although perhaps not in theology, is another. Ultimately there is nothing sacrosanct about our worship services. Culture is after all only culture – we must recognise this fact if we are to incarnate Christ. Personal preference must make way for accommodation; form for worship in both Spirit and Truth.

6. A Culture Apart

In the nineteenth century there was a golden age of mission as new frontiers were opened, difficult languages learnt and Scriptures translated. We crossed cultural boundaries to take the gospel to unreached people groups. In the twenty-first century, as these unreached people groups are systematically targeted and reached, we will nevertheless continue to have unreached peoples living in our own neighbourhoods. These are people who have not heard the Gospel message even once – they are going to be young people who live in a plethora of virgin cultures, for the most part un-accessed or inaccessible to adult missionaries. To judge the vast gulf between you and them, consider the following:

They have only known one Germany. Man has always walked on the moon. Their lifetime has always included AIDS. The expression “you sound like a broken record” means nothing to them. They have never owned a record player. They have likely never played Pac Man and Star Wars looks very fake. They have always had an answering machine. They have always been able to fax. Cell-phones are normal. There have always been VCR’s, but they have no idea what Beta is. Roller-skating has always meant inline for them. They never took a swim and thought about Jaws. Petrol has always been sold 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They don’t remember who Botha is – neither Naas or PW. They do not care who shot J.R. and have no idea who J.R. is. The Cosby Show, Miami Vice, WKRP in Cincinnati and Dynasty are shows they have likely never seen. Jet airlines? – are there any other types of planes? Those ten years old and younger cannot remember institutionalised apartheid. Michael Jackson has always been white.¹⁰

Every culture needs to be impacted and penetrated by the gospel. The multitude of youth cultures is no exception. And then once that culture has been penetrated and youth come to know Christ, lets not demand that young people lose their culture. Lets not make native Americans and Africans dress like Europeans in order to be acceptable worshippers. Lets at least, having learnt past painful lessons, allow room for Christ himself to transcend these cultures. Culture can and must be retained in a Christian lifestyle. But “How can a Christian person want to remain in a culture that appears sinful?” is a frequently asked question.

The answer is twofold. Often to the uninitiated, different is equated with sinful, but culture has both sinful and amoral elements to it. Many young people who become Christians who are part of the “Alternative”¹¹ youth culture still continue to wear black clothes, look anorexic and have more body piercings than we are comfortable with. But what is sinful about any of these elements? It is difficult to distinguish Christian “Alternatives” from their non-Christian counterparts – but only when it comes to appearance. Christian alternative kids tend to clean up their act in terms of drugs, music, partying, anarchy, degradation, escapism, alcohol-abuse, occult involvement, rebellion, anti-social behaviours, anti-authoritarianism, hatred, defiance, misery, self-pity, terror, selfishness, suicidal tendencies, depression, destruction and condemnation. In the nineteenth century bar room tunes were retained and excellent hymns written to the same tunes. No-one continued to sing the hymns while getting drunk. Wrong and sinful elements of culture become transformed and replaced with a vertical relationship with God and a horizontal relationship with people: “Love God, bear fruit in keeping with repentance, love your neighbour, forget the rest!” should be the exhortation to young people converted out of a specific sub-culture. Long hair doesn’t have to become short and kempt; T-shirts don’t have to transform into ties; studded ripped jeans surely don’t have to metamorphose into smart Woolworths cotton trousers.

7. Hugely Concerned with Social Ethics

One of the greatest challenges facing Christendom in the twenty-first century will be our response as a community of faith to the multitude of ethical dilemmas already emerging in general society. Abortion, homosexuality, poverty, capitalism, gender, sexuality, genetical engineering, affirmative action, revolution, ethnic cleansing are all old issues which will assume greater significance as the new century dawns. Postmodernism demands less rigid and definitely less judgmental answers. Christians everywhere must be prepared to give an answer for their faith in a gracious and humble manner. The iron rod orthodoxy of the past is over. It no longer even gets a hearing. If we want to be salt and light – we must be prepared to reopen debates and find answers that truly resonate with a world in need. I am sure that we have heard the end of long scholastic debates about predestination, charismatic gifts and dispensationalism. Social ethics is now the new issue at hand – and one on which the Christian church and its relevance to youth will stand or fall.

The Bible is not directive and/or silent on may of the social and ethical issues with which we are confronted today. There is room for debate and argument. Lets not hang onto rationalism and modernism as if they are the world views that came with the Bible. Lets agree to stop debating the unimportant – how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin¹² and predestination fall into the same category in postmodernism.

8. Aliens to Traditional Family Structures

The church of the twenty-first century needs to be a warm, welcoming and loving family. A place of nurture and not of judgment or of insistence of outward conformity. Most young people would not have experienced the typical early twentieth century nuclear family. It is currently estimated that 3 in every 4 American teenagers will experience family breakdown by the time they turn 21. Bill Price and Associates³, doing similar research in South Africa, have found the statistics to be slightly better in South Africa, with only 1 in 3 young people currently experiencing family breakdown, yet the trend is downwards. Dysfunction will be the norm. The usual metaphors used in understanding the character of God may no longer be accessible to Generation 21. In particular, the role of fathers is disturbing. The high incidence of abuse is well documented in South Africa. Research has also shown that only 25% of fathers spend more than 2 hours per week interacting with their children³. Family needs to be redefined and modelled in the church – and people helped to learn Godly principles of family life both inside the church and in their own homes and partnerships.

9. Economically Vulnerable

The HSRC recently released findings that only 1 in 30 school leavers are likely to find employment in South Africa in 199913. Throughout the world, the gap between rich and poor is growing steadily. The “rules” have changed – big business and government are no longer the employers of last resort. The key to solving this problem, according to well-known South African forecaster, Clem Sunter¹⁴, is to develop small businesses and encourage entrepreneurs. But legislative bureaucracy and nervous banks have created a climate that is not suitable for this kind of development in South Africa. Today’s young people are nervous about the future, as they see themselves following their American counterparts in becoming the first generation in modern history to earn less on average than their parents¹⁵. Soaring educational costs, often financed with student loans that create massive debt traps, soaring house prices in recent years which exclude first time home owners, and the increase in government benefits to older generations add to the financial fears of Generation 21. And when we talk of “averages”, it should be noticed that the cyber-elite are all young and making lots of money on the Internet and in new IT-related growth industries. This means that the gap between those beating the average and those sliding beneath it is also widening. The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.

10. AIDS Infected

The AIDS epidemic has not begun to take its toll. Of all the fears South African young people have for the present, AIDS ranks by far the highest3. There is no agreed data, but estimates of AIDS infection range from 30% of young people to as high as 75% of young people in certain areas (in particular, young girls in rural KwaZulu Natal). Generation 21 is going to live through the deaths of their friends over and over again in the next century.

11. Violence Saturated

South Africa is a violent country, but until recently violence was not seen as a direct youth issue. However, more and more young people are being drawn into the web of violent crime, as both perpetrators and victims. This is once again following a trend first seen in America, as evidenced by the spate of recent school shootings. Bill Clinton has made it a personal goal to clamp down on violence in the movies and on TV before the end of his presidency. What will happen to a generation that has become violence saturated? Some scenarios are too frightening to contemplate.

12. Spiritually Hungry

Generation 21 is spiritually hungry. This does not mean that they are seeking after the God of the Bible – rather they realise that there is a higher reality, that there is something beyond the purely natural world we live in. Postmodern young people don’t need to be convinced of the fact that there is a higher power nor of the existence of the supernatural. What they do want to know is why they should choose Christianity rather than any other of the multitude of spiritual options available. As far as many of them are concerned, Christianity was a modernist experiment that has proved to fall short of answering some of the critical questions of postmodernity. This is largely due to over-reaction of many traditional Christians to new expressions of faith and culture.

The church as we know it cannot survive much longer. It must find its roots again in a truly Biblical approach to ministry. We therefore offer some answers to the issues we have raised.

SOME ANSWERS

As a church we can easily and must resolutely rise to the challenge. We say easily not because it will be without difficulty – but rather because the solutions are pretty basic and will take little more than intentional effort, conscious understanding and a willingness to adapt. An exception may be in the financial resources required – yet even in this solution, it may mean a redistribution of resources rather than finding huge amounts of new resources. Here are some basic ways to meet the challenges outlined above.

1. Relational Ministry

One of the chief characteristics of modernism was the elevation of the individual. Ministry in a postmodern context requires us to once again find the Biblically mandated community/relational approach to ministry. George Barna¹⁶ notes that “Boomers (the parents of Generation 21) value a network of relationships and find the transient, utilitarian nature of their associations as completely acceptable.” Barna goes further to say: “[Generation 21] have outright rejected the impersonal, short-term, fluid relational character of their parents. They have veered more toward traditional, longer-term relationships. However, given their cynicism and pessimism, they have lowered their expectations vis-a-vis relationships: their potential duration, the number of significant bonds, and their fervor to create a wide pool of contacts. Boomers sought relational breadth; [Generation 21] seek relational depth…What emerges are two generations bonded by blood, but separated by emotion and expectation.”

“I love young people! It’s so easy to get through to them. The surface might be rough and tough, but its only a two mm thick (or thin!) veneer. Peel it back and there’s just marshmallows!” So says a Scripture Union Youth Worker. And it’s pretty close to the truth. South African teenagers, when asked to list the things that motivated them, rated “love” as the highest motivating factor³.

What one consistently notices is that while it takes different strategies to reach different kids (unchurched, churched, urban , rural, leaders, followers etc), most of them can be reached if one person whom they trust builds tight community (close relationships) with them. It happens time after time – on camp, through contact at a school, in a youth group or on the street. Adults forging friendships with young people, entering their world and earning the right to model the life of Christ to them is what youth ministry is all about. This is relational evangelism. Programme centred evangelism will focus on the production of quality programmes with the intention of drawing large crowds of young people. This strategy can work in drawing numbers, but remains faceless, and in itself is unlikely to result in a lasting impact in the life of a young person. Message centred evangelism emphasizes the proclamation of truth, in the hope that the repetition of the biblical message in creative ways will result in Christian living. While truth may be transmitted from one mind (the speaker’s) to others (young people in the audience), experience shows us that this method, in itself, is infertile and powerless in the long term.

Relationship-centred evangelism recognizes the need of young people to interact with both the message and the messenger. For the message to be accepted, the messenger has to be part of the package. When this happens, powerful youth ministry can take place. It’s not enough to give good talks, or organize elaborate programmes. Youth workers need to give themselves as well, and in so doing earn the right to share the gospel with young people.

2. Peer Ministry¹⁷

“Teens reaching other teens create an atmosphere of trust and affirmation that enables young people who might not otherwise hear a gospel message to hear, and relate, and find release”¹⁸. In a 1997 questionnaire sent to Dutch Reformed mega-churches⁴, positive signs of vitality were overwhelmingly related to two issues: the involvement of laity in ministries and the existence of intentional processes of transformation taking place in their congregations. In postmodern ministry, the “primary role of the pastor will look more like the one under the Apostolic paradigm. Pastors will be teachers and disciplers, preparing the congregation for the work of the ministry. The congregants will be the ministers. The pastor of the twenty-first century must reflect many of the attributes of an entrepreneur struggling to open a niche in the marketplace of religious ideas”²³. 2 Timothy 2:2 and Ephesians 4:12-16 are probably the two most clear and direct Biblical mandates for this re-formational ministry.

3. An Accepting and Nurturing Environment

What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus Christ in the twenty-first century? What does it mean to be radically different? These are pretty basic questions, but really important. What it doesn’t mean – is outward conformity to a previously agreed upon set of standards (action and conduct) for Christian behaviour. When we set a series of outward behaviours and actions as the standard, we introduce cultural perspectives and biases (or traditional expectations). An example – going to movies and wearing make-up in the early part of the century were thought to be sinful, unchristian behaviour. It was a church norm. Today make-up is acceptable and Christians, rather than not going to movies at all, are expected to be selective in what movies they choose to view.

So what does it mean? Simply and biblically, being a disciple means starting a vertical relationship with God, a transaction between two people alone: God and his child. The next question to be asked is: Do we say to new converts simply “Love God and forget all else?” No, because that’s not the complete picture of Christian discipleship, but it is a great place to start. Over time (and with teaching) we challenge our new convert to growth and development. We say “Love God, bear fruit in keeping with your new relationship with God (Christian character development and personal growth), forget all else.”

Now as a third step, we look to the vertical dimension – love your neighbour. The order then becomes “Love God, bear fruit, love your neighbour”. And them this “neighbour” takes two forms: the rest of the Christian family and others generally. So you modify your behaviour, temper, hurtful behaviour, then only do you go on to do things which “avoid every appearance of evil”, “come out and be separate” (inwardly at first, not necessarily outwardly as well) and avoiding things “which does not cause a brother to stumble”. At this stage the new convert isn’t even sure of what his new family is like.

When listed like this, it is quickly apparent that being a disciple of Christ when you have had no previous Christian grounding or experience, is really a tall order, and a daunting prospect. But not impossible. It just takes more insight, patience and often forbearance. Being radically different means having a heart for God – it doesn’t mean being good enough or spiritual enough, according to anyone else’s standards!

Finally, the sense of self, so easily destroyed in Generation 21 must be restored. We need to be preaching salvation as adoption into God’s family, and becoming heirs of the king of the universe (see Ephesians 1). “In the past the church, in particular the Reformed school, has rejected the concept of self, and especially self-actualisation, and self-realisation. These concepts have been adopted by the New Age Movement, and in conjunction with secular humanism have taken on a specific form and meaning. It is this meaning and function that the church is rejecting, but unfortunately they have rejected the whole concept with their rejection of the way non-Christians use it. They have, in a sense, ‘thrown the baby out with the bath-water’. God has created each one of us as unique and special individuals, with a unique and special purpose, this is what makes up our ‘self’, and it is this that we seek to discover in Christian self-actualisation and self-realisation. We seek to find the self that God created and that secularisation, and modern philosophy has destroyed. People are showing all the symptoms mentioned above, because they do not know who they are, they have been made into orderly, predictable, individualistic, anonymous, nihilistic, driven things that simply exist with no meaning and purpose. Somehow we, as Christians, have to restore in them a sense of self-worth. This is only truly found in relationship with God, and this is where it becomes a tricky balancing act”¹⁹.

So more than merely relational evangelism the nature of our nurture and the warmth and acceptance of the nurturing environment is of paramount importance to both evangelism and discipleship of Generation 21. Thus, the greatest commandment is reborn in our churches. The twentieth century church has a way to go to achieve this.

4. Professionalising Youth Ministry

With an estimated 17 million South Africans below the age of 18, any serious attempt to launch youth ministry programmes must address itself to the vast numerical challenges: “How many youth workers do we need in South Africa?” rather than the more parochial “Where can we find a youth worker for our church?” SAQA (the South African Qualifications Authority) has already begun setting up guidelines for minimum qualifications for various industries, including youth work. Churches should be involved in this process, to ensure that minimum levels of care are set up to include spiritual input as well. We must also focus our attention on providing the kind of training environment that will ensure that Christian youth workers are the best qualified youth workers in the country.

If we set out sights on a target of 1 youth worker per 10 000 school going young people, we would need 1600 professional youth workers. More ideally, a ratio of 1 youth worker for every 1 000 young people would require 16 000 youth workers. This compares unfavourably with an estimated 1 000 full time youth workers around South Africa. And not only are the quantities of youth workers significant but their levels of expertise and training is sorely lacking. Amongst other things a youth worker is a missionary, a pastor and a social worker²⁰. That’s a big job – which needs great skill.

The church in South Africa needs to envision a youth ministry culture in which qualified men and women in significant numbers make a career out of youth ministry, either in the context of the local church or through para-church agencies (specialist service agencies). Such a culture requires a considerable infra-structure; and more importantly, such an infra-structure needs to be informed and influenced by thinkers whose ideas and writings maintain a sharp edge. Youth work must be recognised as a profession (a vocation!) rather than a bus stop while waiting to move on to more “mature” pursuits.

5. Finding the Resources

The 1996 South African census²¹ shows that 34% of South African are under the age of 15. A total of 54% of the population (some 21,929,512 young people) is under the age of 25 years. Research done by youth students at the Baptist Theological College, Randburg, indicates that as many as 75% of people who become Christians do so before the age of 18. It is also clear that young people are more open to the Gospel than adults. If the church’s role is to spread the Gospel, using limited resources, then it makes the most sense to maximize those resources by using them where they are most likely to be effective: that is, in youth ministry, or on things that affect young people.

Churches routinely dole out their scraps to youth ministry, although there are some notable exceptions. Specialist service agencies, existing solely for the purpose of pursuing youth evangelism objectives, are notoriously underfunded. A whole new mind set needs to be adopted if the necessary youth ministry programmes are to be adequately funded.

Giving to churches and mission agencies totalled R900 million during the 1996/97 financial year, of which R65 million, or just 7%, was allocated to youth ministry²². Set this against the required R1 000 million necessary to fund 16 000 professional youth workers, and one is quick to reach the conclusion that something radical needs to happen.

Churches simply have to work towards allocating 50% of their income to youth ministry, including youth ministry programmes outside of their local church, possibly through specialist service agencies – who may have greater skills in penetrating unchurched youth in various sub cultures. Individual church members with business influence should seek ways to channel funds into community youth ministry programmes. Joint appointments between churches, or between churches and youth agencies are strategic. Ultimately, funding for mission work comes primarily through God’s people, and sacrificial giving remains the predominant Biblical pattern. There is a cost to be born to meet the challenge of ushering Generation 21 into the kingdom.

6. A Social Conscience for the Church

A church which has no input into the social life and welfare of the community is a church that is out of touch, and perceived to be out of touch, with the very people it claims to serve. Church was never meant to be a showcase for saints – rather it is a hospital for hopeless sinners. As such, it reaches out to people at the point of their need, allowing the material and physical response to bear testimony to a spiritual solution. Churches need to take up the Biblical mandate to be stewards of the environment, to be healers of the sick, defenders of those who have no rights, and helpers to the widows and orphans. It is time for middle class congregations to consider their privileged position seriously in the light of the story of the rich young ruler. God has not called anyone to be wealthy – at best he has called some to be big earners, so that they can be sacrificial big givers. But we are not simply talking of money – the church’s responsibility extends to issues such as environmental concern, community crisis response, disaster alleviation, justice, community law enforcement and a host of other issues that will require time and sacrifice.

7. Changing Methodology

Postmodernism is not right or wrong – it just is! It is the context in which we will work to a greater extent as the years roll on. Young people who come to faith need help recognising the current world view for what it is – not wrong, not always helpful, but definitely there. They need to be taught “faith development skills” which takes nurture, resources, relationships and professionals. Faith development skills are about making faith work, answering questions, helping young people understand why God’s word says what it says, and how to apply the obvious and work out the implied. It means taking seriously the experiential and the cognitive – not merely answering “It’s in the Bible and so its true” – but rather “It’s in the Bible because its true (and best and it works)”. For example we must help youth see that immoral behaviour hurts people… it hurts their individual development and it hurts their relationships with others. They need to be taught honesty and integrity when for the last sixteen years they’ve survived the streets through shrewdness and movie ethics. It is extremely unhelpful to say – “Do this because God says so”.

For faith development skills to take root our methodology must change. Lets not fall victim to the oldest disease on the planet, the eight words that always seem to announce the demise of effective work – WNDITWB – “We never did it this way before!”.

REFERENCES

1. There are a number of excellent introductions to postmodernism from a Christian perspective. The writers recommend: J.R. Middleton & B.J. Walsh. The Truth is Stranger Than It Used To be: Biblical Truth in a Post Modern Age. Downers Grove: IVP, 1995. S.J. Grenz. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eeerdmans, 1996.

2. Dr Jay Kesler, quoted in Dean Borgman. The Battle for a Generation: Capturing the Hearts of Our Youth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

3. In 1998, Bill Price and Associates completed a “Profile of South African Youth and Family”, using a statistical base of over 3,000 South African young people between the ages of 13 and 27. The profile covers 28 key attitudinal areas, including areas referred to in this article such as spirituality, home & family, leadership, money and education. More details available at: http://www.youth.co.za/census.

4. Dr. H. Jurgens Hendriks. “Ministry In A New Dispensation”. Practical Theology & Missiology Department, University of Stellenbosch, available on-line: http://home.pix.za/gc/gc12/papers/p1008.htm.

5. Dr Jurgens Hendriks is chairman of the DRC mega-church research group, investigating the reasons that some 80 DRC churches have been able to successfully expand in size when the denomination itself declined significantly between 1985 and 1996. This statistic was extracted from a paper entitled, “Megachurch trends: 1997″.

6. P. Cain & R.T. Kendall. The Word and the Spirit. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1996.

7. T.H. Groome Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Our Vision. Chicago: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.

8. D. Johncon, R. Johnson & E. Holubec. Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994.

9. Soul Survivor is a church community of largely young people in Watford. Matt Redman is the worship leader and Gerald Coates is a sponsor of the movement.

10. Extract adapted from a presentation by Graeme Codrington, “Mind the Gap“.

11. Alternative youth culture is a counter-culture, which rejects mainstream trends, and is characterised by (amongst others) a music style that is neither rock nor metal but has a mixture of both elements with a melancholic and dark dress style.

12. A serious debate of thirteenth century Scholasticism.

13. Quoted in the Natal Mercury, front page story, 5 August 1999.

14. Clem Sunter. Never Mind the Millennium. What about the next 24 hours?. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, 1999.

15. Neil Howe and William Strauss. 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Cancel?. New York: Vintage, 1993.

16. George Barna. The Disillusioned Generation. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 1994. Quoted by A. Allan Martin in “The ABCs of Ministry to Generations X, Y, & Z”, available on-line: http://www.tagnet.org/dvm/ABCs.html.

17. The call to return the ministry to the people is one that is consistently gaining volume at the end of this century. One of the clearest books on the issue is Greg Ogden’s The New Reformation: Returning the Ministry to the People of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. In this book, he argues that the last Reformation (which helped usher modernism into the church) was a re-formation of theology. He is calling for a new re-formation of praxis.

18. Wendy Murray Zoba. “The Class of ’00″ In Christianity Today. February 3, 1997 Vol. 41, No. 2, Page 18. http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T2/7T218a.html.

19. Steven Lottering. “An Investigation into a Current Trend in Youth Culture with a Biblical Apologetic”, available on-line: http://home.pix.za/gc/gc12/papers/p2003.htm.

20. D. Borgman. When Khumbaya is not Enough : A Practical Theology for Youth Ministry. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.

21. The census results are available on-line at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census96/HTML/default.htm.

22. This is an estimate only. One of the problems of youth work in general and South African youth work in particular is that statistics of these sort are not available.

23. Mike Regele. Death of the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Pg. 221.

Related posts:

1. Five Things Every Adult Christian Should Know About Youth Ministry
2. Being Incarnational in Youth Ministry – a theology
3. Towards A Theology of YOUTH Ministry

In 2001, I was editing a magazine on the future of church ministry. I approached respected author, academic and church consultant, Richard Kew to write about what he thought was a critical future trend the church needed to be aware of. This is what he wrote. Now, nearly a decade later, it’s still important, and his advice should still be heeded.

Last weekend I was invited to speak at, and participate in, a consultation on ministry among the aging. It was a fascinating weekend. I learned a lot, met some interesting people, and (I hope) was able to make a small contribution to the process. This weekend I sat down with the November 3, 2001, issue of The Economist, and found a major survey of the near future by Peter Drucker that has me questioning — as well as building upon — some of the things that I said last Saturday!

Drucker is venerable in every sense of that word. Now 92, his mind is still as clear as a bell, and for someone who is highly unlikely to live long enough to see some of the things he is talking about, he is obviously very engaged with what tomorrow might look like. At the heart of some of his projections is his recognition that the developed world’s population is aging to such an extent, that the social safety nets all western democracies have put in place are utterly inadequate.

Here’s a nugget to ponder: “By 2030, people over 65 in Germany, the world’s third-largest economy, will account for almost half the adult population, compared with one-fifth now. And unless the country’s birth rate recovers from its present low of 1.3 per woman, over the same period its population of under-35s will shrink about twice as fast as the older population will grow. The net result will be that the total population, now 82m, will decline to 70m-73m. The number of people of working age will fall by a full quarter, from 40m to 30m.”

For the same reasons, Japan’s population will peak in 2005 and will decline from 125 million to around 95 million in the following 45 years. Life expectancy has been rising at the same time that birth rates have been declining in the West, and already developing economies like China are seeing their birth rate drop below replacement levels. This means incredible changes are on their way for our economies, all of which have been geared to meet the needs of an avalanche of younger rather than older citizens. It also means that the issues of pensions and immigration are going to be THE hot domestic topics in Europe, North America, and other developed countries for the rest of our lives and well beyond.

Drucker makes it quite clear that by 2025-2030 it is highly unlikely that there will be resources available for state-sponsored retirement funds for anyone until they are into their mid seventies, and, indeed, we may be moving toward a time when fixed retirement ages for people in reasonable physical and mental health are a thing of the past. So far, only the USA, Canada, and Australia, among Western nations, have in place the national culture that can absorb immigrants at the pace necessary to fill the vacuum, and even in these countries there are tensions about what immigration does to the existing culture.

This is a raft of information that the churches ignore at their own peril, and it will profoundly influence the pattern of ministry and funding of ministry as we move into the future:

1. Patterns of employment will change. Older people will carry on working much further into their elderhood. I, personally, do not expect to properly retire until I am at least 72-75, and maybe beyond that. There are theological and discipleship reasons for my own commitment to continuing to work, but also, I recognize that older pastors are going to be necessary to work among seniors as they try to adjust to a radically changing set of affairs where their lot is far less comfortable than that of their elders.

2. Patterns of giving are going to change. I suspect that we will see seniors, who have been the moneybags for the churches in the last 40-50 years, setting aside much more of their resources to support them when they are beyond working age than is the case at the moment. This means that ministry will have to look for other ways to fund itself, and I am increasingly convinced that a mixed economy of donations, fees-for-service, and semi-commercial enterprises will be part of the way forward. Financially successful congregations are going to be those who find creative ways of pulling such a mixed economy off.

3. Christian resources will have to be focused on ministry among the elders of society. This means evangelistic ministry as well as care ministry. One of the biggest unreached people groups in the USA today is those aging Boomers whose lives are bereft of anything that has to do with a living, eternal relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, we need to spend dollars on youth ministry, but yes, I think that tomorrow’s church budgets will have to have a major segment set aside to fund much more extensive ministry among seniors.

4. There will be human resources available of which we have made limited use to this point. One of the things about seniors is that since World War Two we have seen the so-called golden years as a time when folks are out to pasture. We are now in a position where we have tens of thousands of fit, able-bodied, men and women who should have more challenges to address that merely swanning round the country in their RVs “spending their children’s inheritance.” Men especially, particularly those who have lived stimulating lives, need to be given more than tasks of ushering, counting the money, or if they are good, sitting on the vestry — one of the reasons there are so few men in churches today is that we have not provided them with challenges, so (among other things) they perceive the Gospel to be trivial. We have folks in our congregations now who have the energy and the ability to make a significant difference for the Kingdom in their third age. For example, I have noticed that almost every church plant I know has at least one older couple part of it, and they are very often the pillars who make this new congregation happen.

5. We must be prepared to tailor parish life to suit the less predictable lifestyles of the elders. While it is likely that elders will continue to work, it is also likely that the jobs they will take on will not be life-long salaried employment for one organization. This means that the Christians a congregation has available might be going like slaves for several months working on a temporary employment assignment, and then be available for several months for something that the parish has in mind.

6. Following on from the previous point, we need to multiply the mission opportunities available to elders both at home and abroad. I am delighted that SAMS, of which I was the founding chair as quarter of a century ago, is now sending hundreds of short termers to Latin America every year. We need to find similar opportunities at home and find ways that elders can become part of them. Habitat for Humanity probably has some lessons it can teach us in this realm.

7. We will continue to have an explosive immigrant population that we will need to reach. These immigrants will come in because they will be needed to fill the gaps in the workforce left by the fact that the overall population is aging. How we reach out with the message to these folks is crucial. I noticed in something that came over my transom the other day that immigration has so changed the balance of religion in the UK that by 2015 it is likely there will be more practicing Muslims than practicing Anglicans. A similar process is underway here, and we ignore it at our peril. So, while immigrants are coming in to meet our needs, they will also be changing the face and shape of our world — as well as setting themselves up to be the next generation of elders.

8. The massive increase in the number of the elderly in need of care is going to put greater pressure on families, and especially women with careers. There are just not going to be the number of professional caregivers necessary, or the resources to pay for support for elders who need care in the years ahead. Already we are facing a nursing crisis, and this is only going to get worse by all accounts. The burden of caring for the elderly has traditionally fallen on middle-aged women, yet these are the folks who have been most liberated from yesterday’s roles and expectations by the information economy. This means that parishes are going to need to find ways of providing considerable support for tomorrow’s “sandwich generation.” The sandwich is now a club sandwich, by the way, for this is the first time in human history that five generations are likely to be alive at the same time. One component of this conundrum is that men must be conditioned to understand that caring for elders is THEIR job as well.

9. I suspect that we are going to see a return to more extended families as a way of coping with the pressures that so many aging folks are going to put on the system. The downside of this is that it is going to reduce mobility, and at the same time it is going to make life even more difficult for those who are single or who are alone in the world. Single people either need to be part of a larger, extended family, or they are going to need to save huge amounts of money to keep themselves from penury in old age. As I do not see many Boomers doing this, I suspect that we will have a major care crisis on our hands within 10-15 years — and this we are not preparing for.

10. We just do not know how this is going to reconfigure the economy. We do not know whether the world economy has the resources to deal with such a surge of elderly, coupled with such a drop the proportionate size of younger generations. We do not know what will happen to developed economies when their population begins to shrink. Could we be in for a period of economic decay that leaves us all in fiscal trouble? We do not know whether the increasingly militant (and much younger and overwhelmingly male) developing world cultures will see a vacuum that they want to fill and begin invasions of a formal or surepticious kind. This is truly a wild card, and made more wild by our realizations following September 11.

Here’s Drucker’s final warning from his Economist article: “All this suggests that the greatest changes are almost certainly still ahead of us. We can also be sure that the society of 2030 will be very different from that of today, and that it will bear little resemblance to that predicted by today’s best-selling futurists. It will not be dominated or even shaped by information technology. It will, of course, be important, but it will be only one of several important new technologies. The central feature of the next society, as of its predecessors, will be new instititions and new theories, ideologies and problems.”

I suppose the question we need to address is how the Christian church fits into that mix in a multi-ethnic, pluralistic world.

Related posts:

1. Welcome new readers – a quick intro to the conversation thus far
2. Church is not the end, it’s the means
3. Living in an age of transition

Quick reference List…

for Why New Ideas around the church WON’T WORK

Somebody’s always suggesting new ideas around the church, like adding on to the building, or switching Sunday school to after worship, or changing the times of services. No sooner than such ideas surface, objections swarm up like spring mosquitoes. In order to proceed in a more orderly and organised manner, why don’t we all begin expressing our reasons for why these new ideas won’t work by simply citing the objections by number, as in, “I’m against it because of 11, 26, and 44”.

1. It’s not in the budget.
2. I need more time to think and pray about it.
3. What we’re doing now is working just fine.
4. I know a church who tried it and it didn’t work.
5. They never had to do that in Bible times.
6. We don’t have the power to act on that.
7. Let’s assign it to a study committee.
8. Some of our best givers would oppose that.
9. It’s a good idea, but several years ahead of its time.
10. This sort of thing could cause a reaction.
11. It might work in America, but not here.
12. The older people would never accept it.
13. It would never produce any tithers.
14. We’ve done OK all these years without it.
15. We couldn’t do it until we have a new building.
16. It is too expensive.
17. It could ruin our carpet.
18. The timing’s just not right.
19. Let’s not be the first to try it.
20. Let’s put it on hold for a while.
21. I need to see more details before I can vote on I.
22. It’s too charismatic, [and/or] liberal [and/or]
social [and/or] _______ (add your label here)
23. It doesn’t fit in with our long range plan (see 51).
24. Some of our newer people won’t like it (see 52).
25. I don’t see any long term value in it.
26. That’s what we hire the pastor for.
27. We’ll lose people; why I know several…
28. It doesn’t fit the culture of the people around here.
29. Good idea, but we’re just not ready for it yet.
30. Our people are already overworked.
31. It doesn’t jive with our mission statement.
32. That would be too radical a change at one time.
33. Our church is too small to try that.
32. Our church is too big to try that now.
33. It is a worthy goal, but quite frankly it’s impossible.
34. Jesus didn’t have to do that to minister.
35. There are people who will stop tithing if we do it.
36. There’s just not enough time.
37. In a larger city that might work.
38. Perhaps it would work in a rural area, but not here.
39. Our facilities just couldn’t handle it.
40. It’s too much change too fast.
41. I think all we need is to do what we’re doing better.
42. It needs done, but we’re not the ones to do it.
43. Let’s let it marinate for a few months.
44. The trend right now is exactly the opposite way.
45. Something just doesn’t feel right to me.
44. Everybody’s not on board yet.
45. Bill Gothard teaches against it.
46. Our people are stretched too thin.
47. Our people have been asked to give too often.
48. The woman’s group would be against it.
49. This could be divisive. We could get sued.
51. Do we have a long range plan for this sort of thing?
52. Some of our older people won’t like it (see 24).

From an anonymous email

No related posts.

It is God’s design that His Gospel, the Good News of salvation for all who believe in Christ, should be passed down throughout history by each generation reaching and teaching the next. This was clearly spelt out in Deut. 6:6-12, repeated in Deut. 32:45-47 and in Joshua 24. Yet, one of the saddest verses in Scripture is the indictment in Judges 2:10, “After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel” (NIV). The indictment is not against the wayward youth, but actually against the older generation who failed to correctly nurture them. It appears as if this indictment may be repeated in our own day. Today, the church is on the brink of a major crisis as many young people are rejecting it as irrelevant, boring and superficial.

The church is always only one generation away from extinction. If Satan can win the soul of just one generation, then he wins the souls of all that follow. The role of youth ministry in a local church is therefore one of the most vital aspects of that church’s existence, and certainly the key to its continued survival. With this in mind, there are a number of critical areas in which churches appear to be failing the generation of young people at the beginning of a new millennium. These can be characterised by five serious misconceptions regarding the role of youth ministry in the local church:

“The youth are the church of tomorrow”

It may be true that by the year 2040, today’s youth will be the older leaders in the church, and today’s church leaders will be no more, but this does not mean that the youth have no place in today’s church. In fact, the history of evangelicalism is the history of ministry to young people and ministry by young people. The Bible itself is filled with young people doing ministry: Joshua (probably no older than 18, selected as Moses’ second in command as Israel left Egypt)), David (age 13 when anointed king by Samuel), Jeremiah (seemingly called from birth, probably started prophesying at age 6), Mary (“betrothed” but not yet married, therefore probably about 13 years old), the disciples (most likely that most of them were mid-teens when called by Jesus) and Timothy (likely in his teens when given Ephesian church to lead and pastor) are but a few examples. The youth are not the church of tomorrow – they are the church of today.

The Church needs young people to be the church today, as they are the only generation naturally equipped to survive and thrive in the postmodern world of ongoing, incremental change. If you need to program the VCR in your home, you don’t call the oldest, most “experienced” person, do you? Young people can assist the church through the muddy waters of change, as we transition from a society based on scientific modernism, through the transition of postmodern skepticism, to whatever will be on the other side.

“Young people should learn to serve by getting involved in behind-the-scenes ministries”

In many churches, young people are considered “involved” in the life of the “main” church simply because they have been allocated a variety of “servant” tasks. The reason for all the inverted commas in the last sentence is because of the difficulty of working with different definitions of concepts. The Bible is very clear that every gift and every position within a church is one of servanthood – even leadership, if Biblically correct, is servant-leadership. However, when older people within a church want to get young people involved, they often feel that young people must “learn to serve”, and therefore allocate them tasks that may include serving tea, cleaning the church, door steward duty, car park attendants, ushers and other such ministries.

Although these tasks are absolutely vital, and most definitely should be done by people gifted with (amongst other gifts) hospitality, administration and helps, it is an insult both to young people, and to those adults who find their ministry in these areas of the church, to call these the only areas where young people can “learn to serve”. Young people should be encouraged to find their God-given gifts, develop them and then should be given opportunities to use these gifts, whatever the gifts may be.

“Young people are too young to effectively minister to adults”

Although it is unlikely that anyone would ever say this out loud, the actions of most churches speak loudly. Young people do not regularly minister to adults, either at adult small groups or in church services. If it is true that our spiritual ability comes not by might, nor power, but by God’s empowering Spirit, and if it is true that it is the Holy Spirit who gives gifts, then age should not be a factor when it comes to utilizing one’s gifts. When young people become Christians they do not get a “Junior Holy Spirit”. They do not get “spiritual gifts lite”. They get the full power of the Holy Spirit, and should be given ministry opportunities on this basis. Do our churches even know what gifts the young people have – let alone giving them opportunities to use these gifts?

“The youth group is a good training ground for leaders”

This is the most common and also most dangerous of the misconceptions, as inexperienced and naïve leaders are let loose on our youth. Adults are a lot more forgiving than teenagers. Adults are also a lot more discerning than young people, and have the ability to distinguish between good and bad ministry. It seems strange then that we persist with using the youth ministry as a training ground. We should use adult ministry as a training ground, and only the very best leaders should be allowed to lead in the youth ministry. I personally believe that allowing untrained, spiritually immature people loose in youth ministry is one of the key reasons that youth ministry is failing in our churches.

“There are more important things than youth ministry on which to spend our money” (“and, besides, they don’t give tithes to the church anyway”)

Most youth ministries’ biggest complaints is the lack of finances, which shows the level of commitment the church actually gives to it. Do a snap survey in your church, and ask people to indicate who made an initial commitment to Christ before the age of 18. If your church fits worldwide averages, you will find over 75% of all Christians made some form of commitment to Christ before age 18. If this is generally true, and if the role of the church is reach the world with the Gospel, then it makes sense to concentrate our energies where it will be most effective. At least 75% of the church’s budget, 75% of time and 75% of facilities and equipment should therefore be focussed on, reaching children and teens.

It’s time that we, as the adults in the church, stop viewing the young people as a threat, and start acting like the grown ups we’re supposed to be. We need to set the vision and direction of our churches – and these must be focussed on our young people. Church was never meant to be a comfortable place to see out mid-life or retirement. Church is meant to be a place where the family of God can be involved in passing on the Truth from one generation to the next. Whatever it takes!!

Related posts:

1. Challenges Facing Youth Ministry in the 21st Century
2. Towards A Theology of YOUTH Ministry
3. Being Incarnational in Youth Ministry – a theology

An assignment completed in 1998, as part fulfillment of the requirements of the Youth Ministry Major at Baptist Theological College, South Africa.

NOTE, July 2010: This article could probably do with updated references to popular culture. If you’re going to use it, please make the effort to replace references to TV shows, movies and music with more up to date references. For example, if Jesus were around today, I’m sure he’d have a Facebook account, and would be happy for any and everybody to be his friend.

1. Introduction

In his book, The Purpose Driven Church, Rick Warren devotes a chapter to Jesus’ model of ministry that attracted crowds. His purpose is to show that a strategy that aims at large numbers is Biblical. In doing so, however, he also makes some important general comments regarding the nature of Jesus’ ministry. Towards the end of His ministry, Jesus instructed His disciples, saying “As the Father sent me into the world, I am sending you” (John 17:18; 20:21). Jesus is our model of operating in the world. But Jesus was God – so how exactly can He be our model?

It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the exact nature of the incarnation (becoming man) of Christ. However, the basis of this paper is that the incarnation involved Christ, who is God, becoming fully human, yet without compromising his full divinity (John 1:14, Phil. 2:6f.). This being the case, let us examine some implications of Christ’s example for youth ministry.

2. Implications of the Incarnation

All of the implications of the incarnation are beyond enumeration or expression. The fact that God Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Sustainer of all life, should reduce Himself to a foetus in a virgin peasant girl is beyond understanding. That the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob should subject Himself to human care as a helpless baby, grow up in Roman-controlled Palestine, and walk from one end of Israel to another, followed by a rag-tag team of social outcasts, eventually submitting to the cruel nails of crucifixion, simply to identify with me, is too great a thought to grasp. Yet, it is possible to glean some principles from Jesus’ earthly life, that can be applied to youth ministry. Just as Jesus took on Himself the form of a human being, we must take on the “form” of a young person. The following sections work towards a theology of Incarnational Ministry, which will explain how this can be achieved.

2.1. Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

The central fact of the incarnation is that while we were still sinners, Christ came to save us (Rom. 5:8). He did not wait for us to find Him. He did not wait for us to ask Him to save us. He took the initiative to come to us. So, too, we must make the initiative to go to where young people are, and make the effort to understand them and the world within which they function. “We cannot stand aloof from those to whom we speak the gospel, or ignore their situation, their context” (Stott 1992:349).

Notice, however, that in taking on human form, Jesus did not relinquish His divinity. Neither can we ever fully become young people again. In fact, that would not be incarnational. Our aim must be to understand, imbibe and function within the world of the young people, integrating and identifying with them, while still remaining adults, in an adult world, with age-bought wisdom. We cannot be what we are not. We must not act childishly, or try to function as a teenager – our bodies and minds will not allow this, in any event. The level to which we can identify with young people will be determined by the specific situation we find ourselves in, but the fact remains that we must identify without losing our distinctiveness as an adult.

2.2. Where You Go, I Will Go

As we have just explained, the incarnation involves God coming to man. “Hence, the underlying thrust of the biblical witness concerns a movement by God towards man. The Father sends the Son. The Word becomes flesh. God was in Christ. At root, to save us God came not in his full glory as God but rather as a man; as a baby… as a condemned criminal on a cross. He hid His glory, he limited himself” (Letham 1988:334). Being incarnational does not merely involve some intellectual identification with young people. It requires us to physically be with the young people. This will require us to go to the places they frequent, such as rollerblading rinks, movie theatres, bars, clubs, small group sessions, shopping malls. We are to go out into the “highways and byways” (Luke 14:23) and become “friends of sinners” (Luke 7:34). We cannot wait for the sinners to come to us; we must
go to them.

2.3. A Penny For Your Thoughts

John Stott refers to a book written by James Sire, The Universe Next Door (1992:359), emphasizing the fact that we must make
every effort to understand how the people we are trying to reach actually think. Due to many influences, including lateral thinking, made popular by deBono, video and computer games, and the Internet, young people these days actually process thoughts and information in a very different way to their parents. They do not process information logically and sequentially, but rather through a complex matrix. This will influence how they grasp new ideas. In order to effectively communicate with them, we must learn to think the way they do, and to structure our message in such a way that they can actually understand it.

Although He had all the vast stores of heaven’s knowledge available to him, “with many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable” (Mark 4:33-34). He did this because he was talking predominantly to illiterate peasants. So, too, we must use language and idiom that reflects a clear understanding of young people’s cognitive functioning.

2.4. In The World, But Not Of The World

Stott emphasizes the fact that although Jesus came into the world, and experienced our temptations, He did so “without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He refers to it as “holy worldliness”:

On the one hand, [Jesus] came to us in our world, and assumed the full reality of our humanness…. He fraternised with the common people and they flocked around him eagerly…. He identified himself with our sorrows, our sins and our death. On the other hand, in mixing freely with people like us, he never sacrificed, or even for one moment compromised, his own unique identity. His was the perfection of ‘holy worldliness’ And now he sends us out into the world as he was sent into the world (John 17:18; 20:21). We have to penetrate other people’s worlds, as he penetrated ours – the world of their thinking (as we struggle to understand their misunderstandings of the gospel), the world of their feeling (as we try to empathise with their pain), and the world of their living (as we sense the humiliation of their social situation…). (1992:244)

This is one of the greatest struggles we will have, stuck as we are in sinful bodies. We must constantly ensure that we keep ourselves pure, yet we must not be scared to enter the dark world as a shining light. Our only hope of power is the same source of power Christ had: the Holy Spirit, who will “protect us from evil” (John 17:15-19).

2.5. Don’t Push Me

Incarnational ministry must be voluntarily entered into. It must arise out of a deep desire to minister for the Lord in this way. If it is done any other way, or if it is forced, it will lose it’s effectiveness. If we do not willingly become like those we are trying to reach, we will be seen to be fake. This, too, will sometimes be a struggle, but the Spirit can give us the power to say with Jesus, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work” (John 4:34).

2.6. Mad About You

The command to love is repeated over fifty times in the New Testament. Love must be the underlying motive of all incarnational ministry. 1 Cor. 13 is a model of the ministry Jesus had on earth, and it is our model as well. Specifically, “it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails” (1 Cor 13:7-8).

This does not mean that we condone everything that a young person might do (cf. 1 Cor. 13:6). Jesus, again was our model. He practised “accepting without approving” (Warren 1995:216), in the examples of his meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-30), His acceptance of and banqueting with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and his wonderful restoration of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Notice that he always urged them to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11), but always did so from a context of love and acceptance of the intrinsic worth of the person. We would do well to love unconditionally, as Jesus did.

2.7. Another Day In Paradise (?)

Phil Collins recorded an album entitled, Another Day in Paradise. In the title track, he chastises those who turn a blind eye to the suffering that they see around them every day. Jesus did not turn a blind eye to the poor, the sick, the social outcasts, the homeless. In fact, Luke 4:18-19 indicates that a primary purpose of His ministry was to reach out to hurting people in practical ways, and meet all their needs: emotional, physical, mental, financial, and spiritual.

“People crowded around Jesus because he met their needs – physical, emotional, spiritual, relational and financial” (Warren 1995:219). Jesus often began by meeting a felt need, even asking the question, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Matt. 20:32; Mark 10:36, 51; Luke 18:41). We cannot be content to say, “be warm and well fed” (James 2:16). We must “show our faith by what we do” (James 2:18), proactively caring for people’s real needs.

2.8. All I Need Is A Miracle

Mike and the Mechanics recorded a song entitled, All I need is a Miracle. The chorus repeats, “All I need is a miracle, all I need is you”. The song is about lost love, and reflects the pain that besets this world. “In every non-Christian (and many Christians too), even in the jolliest extroverts, there are hidden depths of pain. We can reach them only if we are willing to enter into their suffering” (Stott 1992:360). Entering into their suffering means empathising in a way that goes beyond a cursory blessing. We are the only Jesus this world will see. Jesus has elected to make Himself known through our hands and our lips. He uses us to show His compassion to a people who are crying out for love.

2.9. Tell Me The Old, Old Story

An important part of Jesus’ ministry was teaching. He followed the principles laid out in Deut. 6, by making teaching a part of His everyday life. Wherever He went, He made use of teachable moments, using a style that was practical, simple, and aimed at the listener’s level of need. “The deepest kind of teaching is that which makes a difference in people’s day-to-day lives” (Warren 1995:230).

In particular, Jesus’ example is His use of the technique of story. In fact, the whole of Scripture is dominated by the use of story – it is God’s chosen vehicle for revealing Himself and His ways. Ford has argued strongly that today’s young people need to be reached by means of narrative (cf. 1996:227ff.). A story that is both told and lived, is a powerful witness to the world. We need to work hard at making our teaching practical and relevant to the young people we want to reach. Our desire should be to be like Jesus, who “amazed” (Matt. 7:28), “astonished” (Matt. 22:33), and “delighted” (Mark 12:37) with His teaching.

2.10 Friends (are Friends Forever)

Jesus was the “friend of sinners”. As we see Him interacting with people, He didn’t use every social occasion to attempt to evangelise people. Neither did He coerce or cajole people into the Kingdom. Although the conversion of people was always at the forefront of Jesus’ mind, he did not fill every contact with people with evangelistic battering. Instead, he concentrated on building relationships.

Relating his own relationship with two non-Christian friends, Kevin Ford explains, that “friendship isn’t based on whether or not they respond to our gospel…. My Christian faith doesn’t get in the way of our friendship, and I think the reason it doesn’t is that [they] know that our friendship is real and human – not programmed or scripted to produce a certain result” (1996:256). Sometimes this will break our heart, as people refuse to accept our Lord as their Saviour. Jesus understands this. When the rich young ruler came to Him, Jesus “loved him”, yet let him go away (Mark 10:16-22).

2.11 Kodak Moments (Four Weddings and a Funeral)

Jesus made the most of significant moments in life. We have records of Him attending both weddings and funerals. The movie, Four Weddings and a Funeral, depicted a series of relationships that develop through four weddings and a funeral, and how these life changing moments are times when people are receptive to change. We, too, must make ourselves available to people during traumatic and euphoric times of their lives, sharing in joy and sadness, establishing lasting friendships that can have a positive influence.

2.12 Laugh, And the World Laughs With You

Jesus had fun. He came “that we might have life to the full” (John 10:10). Young people like fun. They like life. They need to see a Jesus who is fun. We miss a lot by reading the Bible through serious eyes. Many of Jesus’ parables include more than a hint of a smile. The dramatisation of the Gospel of Matthew on The Visual Bible video series brings this out graphically, as Jesus often laughs with his disciples. Dean Borgman, of the Center for Youth Studies, in an address to the students of the Baptist Theological College, Randburg, South Africa, highlighted the juxtaposition of John chapters 1 and 2. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God, … and the Word became flesh and lived among us, … and the Word went to a party in Cana”.

2.13 The Gravy Train

In two senses, Jesus connects with Generation X on the issue of authority and “the system”. Firstly, Jesus did not come to implement a “system”. He was not wanting to impart a written code of truth. Jesus is The Truth (John 14:6). In a political world that places much emphasis on transparency, God made Himself vulnerable and accessible, to the utmost extent possible. His incarnation is the very best possible way for God to show that He is primarily interested in relationships.

Secondly, Jesus was actually opposed to “the system”. The religious leaders of the day were the subjects of the most scathing remarks Jesus ever made (e.g. Matt. 23:33). He opposed the religious system of His day. We are not necessarily called to actively denounce our own church leaders, but we must speak out against traditions that are detrimental to young people entering, getting involved in and enjoying church life. Sometimes this will cause ructions between us and the established church. Although we should do our best to maintain peace and unity (Rom. 12:18), we cannot compromise our belief in the Biblical injunction of Jesus’ model of incarnational ministry (2 Tim. 2:2).

2.14 Just Do It

Jesus took risks. He consistently broke the rules of propriety in his culture. The modern generations of young people are risk takers. Nike’s slogan, “Just Do It” sums up the attitude of many Generation Xers. The proliferation of extreme sports, like paragliding, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, and the like, is an indication of this generation’s need to be “on the edge”. The young people of today also respond to extreme attitudes and thinking. They must be shown that the Christian lifestyle is radical, in every sense of the word. Matthew 5-7, the sermon on the mount, and “Christian manifesto” is a radical way of life, that challenges society’s norms and goes against the grain of modern lifestyle. It is an attractive Gospel for those who want to “Just Do It!”. As Jesus did, we must be teaching and living out this manifesto.

2.15 I Have A Dream

Martin Luther King’s dream of national racial unity is still this generation’s ideal, but the frustration of seeing the dream remaining unfulfilled has forced a pragmatic response. Generation X is more likely to concentrate on breaking down racial, gender and economic barriers within their own community, rather than concentrating on the macro environment.

Jesus demonstrated the same approach. In fact, He is remarkably similar. Although desiring complete racial unity (Gal. 3:28), He realised the limitations of His own situation, and thus concentrated on the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) – His own immediate community. “For a generation seeking authenticity in a society and church notorious for its racial divisions, a racially diverse body of believers goes a long way toward authenticating the gospel.” (Tapia, Andres – Cover Story, Christianity Today, 9/12/94, quoted at http://users.vnet.net/rdavis/CTXer.html).

2.16 No More Secrets

Scripture shows us that Jesus was the same in private and public. This goes to the heart of integrity; and integrity is the heart of our ministry. The measure of ourselves is not what we do while people are watching us, but what we do when no-one is looking. Jesus’ example is one to follow, especially in His relationship with the Father. When we make the effort to cultivate a deep and meaningful relationship with God in private, this will naturally shine out of us in all we do.

2.17 We’ve Never Done It That Way Before

“Fulfilling God’s purpose must always take priority over preserving tradition. If you are serious about ministering to people the way Jesus did, don’t be surprised if some of today’s religious establishment accuse you of selling out to culture and breaking traditions” (Warren 1995:238). Jesus’ example calls us to break the “rules” and minister to people where they are.

3. Conclusion

Jesus gave up all that He was entitled to, as Creator of this universe, and humbled Himself, taking on the very nature of a servant (Phil. 2:6-8). If that is what He did for us, how much more should we be prepared to sacrifice for Him? We must be ready to sacrifice our dignity, our pride, our status, our lives, for Him and His work, so that we may bring the good news to a dying world, who will not listen.

After all that we have said about imitating Christ’s incarnational ministry, the ministry of John the Baptist should also be an example to us: “Christ must increase, and I must decrease” (John 3:30). As much as Christ is our model, we are not Christ to our young people. Only Christ can truly be Christ to them. Our role is to be prophets who point the young people to Jesus by the very nature of our existence and ministry (cf. Maas 1996:46). We are but pointers along the way. We are called to set our lives in a place where they can be seen by those who need it most.

Bibliography

Erickson, . Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

Ford, Kevin. Jesus For A New Generation. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

Fowler, James W., Robin Maas, and Robert Wuthnow. Christ and the Adolescent. The 1996 Princeton Lectures on Youth, Church and Culture. Princetown: Princetown Theological Seminary, 1996.

Letham, R. W. A. “Incarnation” In New Dictionary of Theology. Eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, and David F. Wright. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1988 (pp. 333-5).

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, (Eds.). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Two Volumes. South African Edition. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1989.

Reymond, R. L. “Incarnation” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed., Elwell, Walter A. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1984 (pp 555-7).

Robbins, Duffy. Ministry of Nurture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992.

Stott, John. The Contemporary Christian. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Related posts:

1. Towards A Theology of YOUTH Ministry
2. Five Things Every Adult Christian Should Know About Youth Ministry
3. Challenges Facing Youth Ministry in the 21st Century

First posted in 1999, and updated in 2005

Sometime between 1960 and 1980, an old, inadequately conceived world ended, and a fresh, new world began.
Hauerwas and Willimon 1989:15 (see bibliography at end for details)

The world of today is caught in the crack between what was and what is emerging. This crack began opening in the 1960s and will close sometime around the year [2020]. Trusted values held for centuries are falling into this crack, never to be seen again. Ideas and methodologies that once worked no longer achieve the desired results. This crack in our history is so enormous that it is causing a metamorphosis in every area of life. Today, the fastest way to fail is to improve on yesterday’s successes.
For many churches, the most disruptive discovery of recent years has been that few of today’s teenagers were born back in the 1950s or 1960s. A new generation of teenagers arrived with the babies born in the post-1969 era. What worked well in youth ministries in the 1960s or 1970s or early 1980s no longer works. Why? One reason is those approaches to youth ministries were designed by adults for an adult dominated world in which most teenagers looked to adults for wisdom, knowledge, leadership, affirmation, expertise, authority, and guidance. That world has almost disappeared and today largely in the heads of people age twenty-eight and over.
Schowalter 1995:8

An age of transition

My grandmother was born in 1916, in East London, South Africa. When she was born she had a reasonable expectation of growing up, getting married, working, living and dieing in a world that remained largely unchanged. After all, although there had been changes in the decades before her birth, most of these took more than one person’s lifetime to work their way into society. But not now! Since about 1950, the pace of change has exponentially increased. So, to help us understand the rate of change,consider that my grandmother was born before inter-continental air flights, jet-aircraft, space travel and moon walking, before individual telephone lines, before computers, before the first commercial motor vehicle in South Africa and tarred roads, before Johannesburg got electricity, before calculators, before “the pill”, before radar, before Elvis, before calculators and ballpoint pens, before faxes, PC’s and cell phones, before photocopiers, before miniskirts and bikinis, before television, before video machines, CDs and DVDs, before satellites and before the Internet. (Yet, every Monday morning, she sends an email to her children and grandchildren, spread around the world).

Yet, it is not just these things, and the speed at which they have arrived, that separates the young from the old in the world at the beginning of the third millennium – today’s young people are separated from their elders by incredible, fundamental shifts in thinking. There is a yawning chasm between todays adults (over 30) and youth (under 30) – in virtually every country in the world. In the last 10 to 30 years major shifts in every sphere of life have fundamentally changed the world: in South Africa it is largely defined by before and after apartheid (and earlier, before and after June 16, 1976), in Germany by the fall of the wall (9 Nov 1989), in America by Vietnam and Watergate, in Britain by trade unions and the Iron Lady, in Iran by the Islamic Revolution (1979), in Portugal by the Carnation Revolution (April 1974), in Estonia by the Singing Revolution (June 1988), in Czechoslovakia the Velvet Revolution (November 1989), in New Zealand by the end of socialism (and by the Eden Park Springbok test match that sparked Maori resurgence), in China by Tianamen Square (June 1989), and everywhere by PCs and the Internet.

We are living in an age of transition, between what was (the Industrial Age) and what will be (as we work through the Information Age into the Biotechnology era we are only beginning to discover the new socio-polital-economic geography of the world). The older generations are frustrated because the young don’t seem to listen to their advice or follow their footsteps. The young are frustrated because they see no guiding light or words of wisdom applicable to the path they’re on. We are in a dangerous place at this moment of history. So, does the Bible have any assistance to give us in such an age?

Joshua in an age of transition

In fact, the age of transition and immense change in which we live is not the first such age recorded in history. Every few hundred years, similar major course corrections take place, as one era gives way to another. One such moment occurred as the era starting with Abraham and ending with Moses was completed, and a new era in the land of Canaan was begun. Joshua was a key figure in the transition period. He was with Moses as a young leader as the nation escaped Egypt and fled into the desert. He was sent as a spy into the land and returned with a favourable report which was rejected by the people. He then spent 40 years in the desert as a nomad. Imagine the enormity of this change: from peasant slave to desert nomad. Then, after Moses sinned by angrily consenting to give the people a taste of their past (water), Joshua became the warrior general, leading his army across the Jordan to Jericho and beyond in the conquest of the land. Again, another major shift from desert nomad to soldier. Then, after a few decades of war the land was conquered, and Caleb and Joshua looked to take their reward and become settlers in the land flowing with milk and honey. From slave to nomad to soldier to settler to farmer – quite a lifetime of transition.

There is much to learn from this era as recorded in Scripture. Most of the lessons come from reflecting on how the older generations were exhorted to act. At the end of his campaign, Caleb was offered any part of the land – yet he chose the rugged hills. He never felt it was time to settle down and enjoy his retirement by doing nothing and longing for the good old days. Always looking for a fresh challenge – always looking ahead to the future. That’s the key.

At the end of his life, Joshua called the people together and read the Book of the Law to them and asked them to choose to obey it (Joshua 24). The Book that was read was most likely Deuteronomy. This is not the book of daily devotions in favour these days, and we often overlook it. However, in context there is a huge lesson for us. Many of the laws in Deuteronomy were written down but not immediately applicable. For example, there are laws relating to the temple – most of which talk about the fact that the Law is only going to be applicable when the Lord had chosen the place in which I will put My Name. There are laws related to the King (the first of which was only installed about 300 years later), to priests and prophets (who only came later in the forms related in Deuteronomy) and to all manner of activities related to when you are in the land. In other words, most of the laws were not applicable to the people who first received them. The Laws were for the future, not for the present. The current leaders were simply custodians of the future, always learning, always changing, yet ever reliant on God.

In fact, in Deuteronomy 6, the Shama Israel, the daily prayer prayed even to this day by devout Jews begins with a statement of Gods eternal nature: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. It goes on to emphasize that this should be imprinted on the hearts of those who hear it. But the very next command is to pass the laws on to the children, in every possible way, in every circumstance. Deuteronomy is by no means a boring book of rules – it was the key to the future entrusted to the desert nomads, reiterated to the settlers and held in trust for the children who would become the first real citizens of the new land, and later even the subjects of the king. Deuteronomy anticipates new styles of worship (the temple), new authority structures (the king), new methods of connecting with God (priests and prophets) and new connections with God unheard of by the existing generations. It is a book for the future. God wanted to ensure that when His people entered the new land they would not continue outdated practices, structures and expressions that would make no sense when everything had changed. The role of the adults was not to preserve the past, but to ensure the future by providing laws that would only make sense in the new land.

At the end of the book of Joshua, we read about the generation of leaders who were contemporaries of Joshua – those to whom Joshua read the Law. Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel (Josh 24:31 NIV). Notice that these people had personally experienced God and served him faithfully throughout their lives – they had gone from desert nomads to soldiers to settlers to farmers in their lifetimes.

In the next book, we read about their children, the generation that followed: The people served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things the LORD had done for Israel (Judg 2:7 NIV).

This generation served the Lord, too, but notice the subtle shift in wording – they had not personally experienced God, they had seen God at work. These were the children standing on the hill overlooking the destruction of Jericho, the children who had inherited a land they had not had to fight for. And then, we read this sad description of the next generation: After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the
LORD nor what he had done for Israel (Judg 2:10 NIV).

Figurative lessons

Margaret Mead was an anthropologist, explorer and teacher, who spent most of her life studying and documenting the tribes of New Guinea. She was fascinated to see these tribes in their ancient forms, and equally intrigued to see the transformation of these tribes as they came into contact with civilisation for the first time. She was able to watch, over the course of nearly 5 decades of direct involvement, as these tribes changed rapidly through the many stages of development (not necessarily implying progress) that other nations had taken a few centuries to do. Even though some of her methods have recently been questioned, her results have proven invaluable in many generational studies in different parts of the world. In particular, her division of different cultures into three main types is helpful. She used the concept of a figurative ability (to imagine and extrapolate) to demonstrate this development. There are three stages: (1) postfigurative, (2) cofigurative, and (3) prefigurative.

A postfigurative culture is one in which change is so slow and imperceptible that grandparents, holding newborn grandchildren in their arms, cannot conceive of any other future for the children than their own past lives. The past of the adults is the future of each new generation (Mead 1970:1). Many older members of churches, although not living in postfigurative cultures, impose postfigurative methods of spiritual training. They expect their children to blindly, and unquestioningly, put on the mantle of spiritual expression that they themselves put on. This phenomenon, also observed by Mead in Polynesian and New Guinea cultures may help us to understand the rejection of the church by young people who have had a postfigurative spiritual experience that is very far removed from the world in which they live. Churches that have failed to see the contextualisation process as important will battle most with this.

A cofigurative culture is one in which the prevailing model for members of the society is the behavior of their contemporaries. In a society in which the only model was a cofigurative one, old and young alike would assume that it was natural for the behaviour of each new generation to differ from that of the preceding generation. In all cofigurative cultures the elders are still dominant in the sense that they set the style and define the limits within which cofiguration is expressed in the behaviour of the young (Mead 1970:25). Mead goes on to identify times when cofiguration will be dominant. The main cause is a substantial and sudden change in culture, such as with immigration, causing the experiences of the young to be very different from those of the old (cf. 1970:29).

As we have already seen, such changes have occurred within culture during recent decades. The fact that no major geographical migration has taken place has served only to exacerbate the problem, since people have had no reason to anticipate this cultural shift. Because no geographical migration has taken place, many older people refuse to see that a cultural migration has taken place anyway. Conflict between generations in such situations is not initiated by the adults. It does arise when the new methods of rearing children are found to be insufficient or inappropriate for the formation of a style of adulthood to which the first generation, the pioneers, had hoped their children would follow (Mead 1970:29). As Mead looked at 1960s society in America, she saw the worst of cofigurative generational tensions. Her concern was with the attitude of parents to these expectations. Simply expecting a child to behave with more of the same values that they had been raised with was not necessarily a good response to the change:

[This attitude] does not extend to a recognition that the change between generations may be of a new order. In much the same way, children in our own and many other cultures are being reared to an expectation of change within changelessness. The mere admission that the values of the young generation,
or of some group within it, may be different in kind from those of their elders is treated as a threat to whatever moral, patriotic, and religious values their parents uphold with postfigurative, unquestioning zeal or with recent, postfiguratively established, defensive loyalty. It is assumed by the adult generation that there still is general agreement about the good, the true, and the beautiful and that human nature, complete with built-in ways of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and acting, is essentially constant. Mead 1970:47f. (emphasis in original)

Prefigurative culture is the current dominant paradigm in the world: “We are now entering a period, new in history, in which the young are taking on new authority in their prefigurative apprehension of the still unknown future” (Mead 1970:1). Mead anticipated the prefigurative culture, identifying much of the globalised world as being cofigurative at her time of writing. Yet, she was never able to truly define what a prefigurative culture would look like possibly this is the whole point. From a cofigurative viewpoint, a prefigurative culture is incomprehensible. She did, however, accurately describe the conditions under which a prefigurative culture would arise: Today, nowhere in the world are there elders who know what the children know, no matter how remote and simple the societies are in which the children live. In the past there were always some elders who knew more than any children in terms of their experience of having grown up within a cultural system. Today there are none (1970:60f.).

In case you haven’t seen where this is going, let me be explicit. The pre-1940s generations can be equated with the postfigurative (Mead) nomads, who were forced out of the land they were born in to venture into the vast unknown, and a nomadic life of change. However, many of the better thinkers of this generation, such as CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, and obviously a whole host of secular philosophers, foresaw the vast changes coming with the demise of the Enlightenment Project (modernism). They began the process of pioneering a new land of thought. The leaders were Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, Sartre and others who explored postmodernism well ahead of their time intellectually. It was on the basis of the exploration done by these explorers that the pioneers were able to begin to move into this land, albeit with tentative steps. And the pioneers were able to make the land their own, as postmodernism began in various forms in the 1950s.

Yet, as good and important as their efforts were, the first generation settlers, the Boomers born in the 1950s and 60s, rejected much of what they had achieved by moving to this new land. Pioneers are on a journey, knowing that they have never arrived, yet as old age sets in, knowing too that they must now set up camp and live it out in the rough new land. They often do so by trying to create fortresses for themselves. Their children, those born in the old land but with few memories of it, learn very quickly to live in the land and accept it as normal territory. However, having grown up in the fort, the children are wary of the land, and attempt to dominate it, rather than live in it and integrate with it. History shows that first generation settlers are often the most savage and driven of the generations of settlers fighting fierce and demanding battles. This is like the Boomers, who see themselves as warriors in a war, battling to survive the onslaught of this hostile new land called postmodernism.

The next generation are neither pioneers nor settlers. They are inhabitants they begin to come to peace with the new land, accepting its rugged beauty for what it is, and not feeling the need to dominate and attack it. Possibly this is because they have accepted it as their own in a way their parents and grandparents were never able to do. Speaking of the youth of her day, Mead (1970:59f.) says, in words that chillingly foresaw the struggle Xers (born in the late 1960s through 1980s) have had to deal with thus far in their lives:

The young generation, however, the articulate young rebels all around the world who are lashing out against the controls to which they are subjected, are like the first generation born into a new country. They are at home in this time. They live in a world in which events are presented to them in all their complex immediacy; they are no longer bound by the simplified linear sequences dictated by the printed word.

Although I have said they know these things, perhaps I should say that this is how they feel. Like the first generation born in a new country, they listen half-comprehendingly to their parents talk about the past. For as the children of pioneers had no access to the memories which could still move their parents
to tears, the young today cannot share their parents responses to events that deeply moved them in the past. Watching, they can see their elders are groping, that they are managing clumsily and often unsuccessfully the tasks imposed on them by the new conditions. They see that their elders are using means that are inappropriate, that their performance is poor, and the outcome very uncertain. The young do not know what must be done, but they feel that there must be a better way.

The final stage of moving from an old culture to a new one is to become a citizen of the new land. This will be left to the Millennial generation (born 1990 and later, in South Africa), followed of course by their children and grandchildren after them. They will be the first full citizens of this new land of thought. The transition we now call postmodernism will be over, and just like the wild west was tamed, so too, the Millennials will live in an ever-tamer world.

The key to understanding this is to remember that we are in an age of transition. We must understand that the rules may be different in this wild west, and the rules may only be temporary as well. We need to focus our attentions on surviving the transition and preparing the best possible future for the future citizens. This may involve, as it involved in America’s history, the setting up of a framework that future generations can hold as self-evident even if we, the people of the transition, do not do so with much confidence ourselves. This is our challenge but it cannot be achieved by a generation that is fixated with itself or with the past.

“Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”
(Josh 1:6-9, NIV)

Bibliography

Anderson, Leith. A Church for the 21st Century. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1992.
Clapp, Rodney. A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society. Downers Grove: IVP, 1996.
Codrington, Graeme. A Model and Methods for Reaching Generation X from the Context of a Local Church. Honours thesis, BTC Southern Africa, 1998.
______. Multi-generational Ministry in the Context of a Local Church. Masters thesis, University of South Africa, 1999.
Easum, William M. Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Hauerwas, Stanley, and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
Hutchcraft, Ron, and Lisa Hutchcraft Whitmer. The Battle for a Generation. Chicago:Moody Press, 1996.
McLaren, Brian D. Reinventing Your Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Mead, Loren B. The Once and Future Church. New York City: The Alban Institute, 1991.
______. Five Challenges for the Once and Future Church. New York: Alban Institute, 1996.
Ogden, Greg. The New Reformation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Regele, Mike, and Mark Schulz. Death of the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Schowalter, Richard P. Igniting a New Generation of Believers. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Sweet, Leonard. soulTsunami. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
White, James Emery. Rethinking the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

Related posts:

1. Five Things Every Adult Christian Should Know About Youth Ministry
2. Welcome new readers – a quick intro to the conversation thus far
3. The Challenge of An Aging Population

Originall posted on 1 June 2005

I am busy reading “Blue Like Jazz”, by Donald Miller (Nelson, 2003, ISBN: 0785263 705) (buy it at Kalahari.net or Amazon.com). The subtitle, “nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality” hints at the style – its collection of stories and reflections on experience of a person trying to understand what it really means to be a question on the 21st century.

He explains the title as follows: “I never liked jazz music because jazz music doesn’t resolve. But sometimes you have to watch somebody loves something before you can love it yourself. But I was outside the Baghdad Theatre in Portland one night when I saw the men playing the saxophone. I stood there for 15 minutes, and he never opened his eyes. After that I liked jazz music. Sometimes you have to watch somebody loves something before you can love it yourself. It is as if they are showing you the way. I used to not like God because God didn’t resolve. But that was before in the of this happened.”

The book is about the author’s experiences as he attempts to discover meaning and God. In chapter 4, “Shifts”, he recounts a conversation with a woman, named Penny, who was talking about how she became a Christian. Here is an edited extract, interlaced with some of my own thoughts.

No related posts.