Emerging Adults - An interview with Christian Smith

John Polkinghorne on Religion in a Global Age

Multi-site Churches - Self-aggrandisement or Strategic? Driscoll, McDonald, Dever and Facebook weigh in!

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald Vote from Ben Peays on Vimeo.


A discussion ensued from this on facebook with some friends and when it continued to grow, I thought I'd add the discussion.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:     So piping Pastoral talking heads into a bunch of satellites decreases the personality cult of mega-churches rather than increasing it? I'm skeptical of that logic


Nathan Smith:     yeah - it sounded like it made sense at first but it still doesn't make sense. Someone who is effective at getting us to believe that their way of doing something makes sense when it ultimately doesn't is a dangerous type of person. That kind of person is dangerous to learn from b/c they say lots that's good but lead you to believe things that aren't at the same time without you realizing it - yuck and poo - don't like that kind of person. If you're self-deceived then you have to work much harder to convince others of what your deceived about - I guess that's true of all of us - but yuck


Phil Nellis:     I guess my hang up is that I am committed to local theology- not exegesis or even teaching piped in as abstraction. And I believe the local church pulpit is the perfect place to practice "theology from below"- which is the opposite of empire. If I want another perspective I can read a book or listen to a lecture or online sermon- nothing can replace the pastor who is present to her/his congregation and engaged in the interpretive act of the text through and on behalf of the local context.


Nathan Smith:       I like this Phil - theology from Below - there is something sacred about bodily presence, not necessarily of the pastor, but of the community and those that lead. If it truly is a family, then a distant mentor/older brother/father who instructs 75% of the time from afar because he is "more qualified" and "effective" than those who do the inhouse work seems like somebody is sticking their you know what into someone else's home. In their efforts to re-masculate Christianity, they are at the same time emasculating their own inferiors. Funny juxtaposition.

I really do think the danger in this move toward re-masculation can dip into its ugly side, when the efforts to masculate become a transaction. The leader effectually garners the mascularity (glory) of their inferior and amasses to their own, thereby absorbing the inferior other into their identity. The relationship is the same as a feudal lord, i.e., "you give me the ownership of your land and a portion of its harvest, while you live on it, work it and take your portion" - all the while though - the sharecropper does the work, but the landlord gets the title of landowner. It seems like they are practicing a type of spiritual/mascularity feudalism. They aren't leading the "other" into their masculine identity by displaying and modeling stewardship, but instead are taking it from them and only to give it back incrementally until they are deemed ready to lead.  The propriety of the owner to entrust stewardship to others remains negligent in their model.  True discipleship of leaders requires a deconstruction and giving away of power that would undermine the whole process they have set up.  Shepherds are just sheep helping other sheep to become shepherds.  Why would one truly give away power when one's whole trajectory is built off of accruing power from others - taking their influence and stealing their glory and only giving it back to them when you as the leader deem it necessary - sounds like a bad loan shark.  What leaders do to the least of these they have done it unto Him. Stealing the glory of another, is ultimately stealing God's glory, the image of God in the "other."

Paul sent letters to be circulated, but never to undermine the local leadership's direct influence and pastoral care. And obviously Jesus waited for the disciples to be qualified and to get it before he let them lead, preach and take up his role in teaching. (tongue in cheek) This rant may be misguided, but it seems this way to me.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:      In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I have always held this deep unease toward the mega-church culture that I don't presume to be able entirely to account for rationally, but Phil's point is a huge part of the axe I have to grind.

The thing is this conversation did a lot to give pragmatic and theological justification to the methods, but it did not satisfy me by examining what is communicated by the methodology itself. Much of it comes down to its tacit reinforcement that the Christian life comes down to receiving a set of propositions each Sunday that are so un-incarnate that we might as well just watch a piped in video of the preacher.

It goes further in that I feel like there is a sort of commodification of faith going on here, making preaching into a product, and then branding and distributing it. Harvest is particularly awful about this. Even what they call "church plants" are quality controlled and exhaustively branded.

Last, the effect of all of this that if the pulpit itself does not reintroduce a privileged priesthood separating the common folk from the real theologians, how much more does a video screen do that? It's bad enough when preachers use their knowledge of Greek to make common folk feel they are separated from the scriptures, but now we have celebrity status added to the mix.

And, of course, as mentioned, there is the personality cult. It's bad enough when some follow Paul and others Apollos, but neither of them intentionally built a video, print and radio empire.


Randy Buist:       Great thoughts here by each of you. The idea of localized theology & theology from below reminds me of Leslie Newbigin and his idea that the people/local church is the hermeneutic of the gospel.

The idea of masculating the gospel is the person of Mark Driscoll (& others) rather than coming from the biblical text. Mark simply prefers to flex his muscles through his pulpit rather than going to the gym five days a week. He's found a home among the neoconservatives rather than thinking theologically for his location...

Thanks for good insights here!


Phil Nellis:       I would also add, given the letter's and epistles of Paul and others, that even when teaching came from outside of the local community, it addressed issues that were indigenous to that community. Paul, from far away, had his ear to the ground and his finger on the pulse of that community to which he was offering particular and contextual teaching. I don't know if all the churches get the same Driscoll video, but I would be surprised if he records a video for each satellite church. I know, as a pastor, that my interpretive lens is impacted by conversations I had with people in my community that week. Sometimes my sermon shifts in the moment to something I had not anticipated because I make it a practice and priority to be as attuned as I know how to be to the Holy Spirit who speaks in the moment, and to the community, who has the power and authority to hold me accountable for what I say in the pulpit.
That is another point that I didn't consider till just now- that the purpose of preaching is also to transform the preacher, and I don't know if that can happen if the preacher is not in authentic relationship with real people in the congregation who can engage her/him in conversation- not only during the sermon, but certainly in the days that follow.

I guess that is where I ultimately land on this issue- that I see YHWH of the OT, Jesus of the Gospels and the Apostles engaged in conversation with the people of God. Video preaching is simply a monologue- and is really the safest way to proclaim the gospel, which is dangerous and disruptive and Living. It is a low view of preaching to remove one's self from the nexus of the relationship between the preacher / proclaimed Word / community. Those 3 must collide in a community of love.

That was more than I thought I had to say... this is a great conversation guys, thanks.




"The Kingdom of God was never meant to fit under one man's roof.  Theological ceilings accord with personality, passion, principles and preferences but not with the person of Jesus Christ."

Theology from the Bottom Up: Do We Start with Man or With God?

“. . . theological work always passes through the observation of man. For we can obtain a doctrine of God only through this, that we perceive things, through which to us the knowledge of God is given, and this takes place in us. The gift requires the recipient and is present only in the recipient. We are only dreaming, not thinking, if we lift our eyes to God without keeping ourselves clearly in view. . ..”  - pg. 14*

But John Calvin disagrees and concludes his first chapter with the following sentence,

"Yet, however the knowledge of God and of ourselves may be mutually connected, the order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first, then proceed afterward to treat the latter."

*Adolf Schlatter, Das christliche Dogma (third edition; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1977), 11-14. 

Francis Chan, Mark Driscoll and a disconnected but related commentary...

What's Next for Francis Chan? A Conversation with Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris from Ben Peays on Vimeo.


I'm 31, almost 32. I'm a cynic (if you haven't noticed by reading previous posts), a realist and out of energy. After a decade of attempting and selling out to whatever seemed to be the best way of thinking, the best spiritual practices, the best group to identify with, the most effective approach to prayer, following the best leaders, working towards the best career and basically trying to discover the secret to life, I'm tired.

I used to think that I knew more than other people about stuff after just discovering it and have lived like that for a decade. Now that I'm in my 30s, I encounter younger adults emerging out of their teens into their twenties all the time with this same posture - "I just found out about this cool idea and I want to tell you about it!" When they do that, those who have lived longer ususally wait until they've finished, or not, and then slip in a "Yeah, I know about...but that's cool that you're learning about that," or they provide/cop an attitude projecting a similar conclusion.

Youthful energy is an amazing force in any society. For all us cynics, it looks naive, foolish and at times wasted. But secretly, we know that youthful zeal is inspirational, powerful and we're jealous (though relieved to be done with it). Many emerging adults are idealistic, impressionable and still experiencing trace elements of adolescence.

I guess I'll get to the point. I believe that there are people out there who see this youthful zeal and try to turn it into a commodity or a resource to fuel their own agenda, ego, fears, etc...

Emerging adults are intelligent but they are also looking ferociously for a place to belong. That belonging isn't the same kind of belonging that we longed for in adolescence but has more to do with our identity as adults. There is more independence but there is also less credibility in this new world of adult-land. It seems that many young emerging adults will apply their youthful zeal to a strong personality, a winning organization, a way of life or a discipline that seems to provide both a sense of belonging as well as the self-affirming independence they so desperately need. What is so wrong is that older people who have their agendas (whether they know it or not) lead these young adults into their worldview and offer "answers" to questions that actually need more time to work out.

A young emerging adult will follow someone who provides them with what seems to be strong and solid answers because this era in their life is one of the most volatile and insecure that they will ever experience. That kind of context drives them to sources of external security and they bring their zeal with them.

Some of us over 30 are all to ready to receive them with open arms with our big answers to life in return for their allegiance and a strong deposit of their zeal. When we see them receive our frame of mind, convictions, activism, ideas and worldview and then run with it farther and faster than we could, it should scare us, not warm our hearts. We are not free of error and to offer our foundational answers to those who might build edifices with them without providing them with a grain of salt or an honest disclaimer is immoral and self-aggrandising.

They may not be as convinced of our way of thinking as they are of the need to belong, to belong to someone or something that provides them with a sense of certainty, meaning and instant credibility. What we think they are receiving may have more to do with their need to belong rather than their ability to share our convictions. That does not mean that they are not intelligent and can't figure things out but all of us over 30 know that we have been on a journey. That journey has required us to shift our convictions, opinions and ideas from time to time, sometimes acutely and at other times very drastically. Most of those shifts take place somewhere between 18 and 30 years of age, though they do continue to happen afterwards, thereby requiring us to hold our ideas and convictions loosely enough to see them change or transform if necessary.

What I am frustrated with is when people in the 30+ years range do not deconstruct themselves, their own confidence or their unwavering assertions. We so easily forget that the era of emerging adulthood actually required some shifts in our thinking because to be the same person at 25 that we were at age 20 would be horrible. So when those of us who are older try to help them nail down what they believe or think so that they won't feel to much uncertainty or insecurity, we are only prolonging their growth and inhibiting their maturation process. It is not wrong for them to sit on certain forms of uncertainty or live with some tension. If we are honest, having an emerging adult look to us for guidance is a bit flattering and affirming - but lest we be uncareful, it can also become a way for us to hide from our own insecurities. Their desire for belonging coupled with their mounds of zeal can provide us with a sense of security for ourselves if we know that they belong to our way of thinking and are willing to throw their lot in with us.

Instead of seeing youthful zeal as precarious we can too easily see it is a commodity, something to be harvested without qualification for our own cause. I am not suggesting we don't do anything with youthful zeal, but I am more than suggesting that people or organizations who use it for their own good without considering what it will do to that youth in the long run are exhibiting a form of selfishness that is parallel with imperialism and a kind of "generational colonialism." "Post-colonialism of the person" isn't pretty and much of the backlash that the church is feeling from its young people is directly related to their imperialistic cloistering and negligent harvesting of the youthful desire for belonging and insurmountable zeal they have to offer.


The combination of a ferocious need to belong, a desire for meaningful input and recognition and an endless supply of youthful zeal makes the "young adult" generation an incredible temptation for those who are looking for a people to embody - to dwell among, something only God is allowed to do. To embody your own ethics and convictions irreverently into the life of another is tempting for all because the need to continually dignify and respect someone who might worship the ground you walk on is so easy to ignore. To take from them what they have to offer while promising them the world through belonging and the resolution of their tension is so easy for some to actually do, yet we are all tempted with the idea, even if we don't follow through. It is something I am tempted with - but it is an evil dynamic, set up to view the "other" as an object - a resource rather than a subject bearing the image of God himself. If we are to help them mature, as we should, this dynamic has to be recognized and villianized rather than ignored or normalized. If we care for the young emerging adult, we will still make these mistakes, but at least we can know we are and call it what it really is.

Then we can help them find out who they really are instead of allowing them to help us become more of who we want to be. This journey of discovery isn't easy and if they have help along the way from guides who won't steal their glory but encourage it's stewardship, something some leaders only feign their way through, they will encounter God in the process.


Calvin teaches that we all need to know ourselves, because it helps us to know God and vice versa.  Here is an excerpt from the first chapter of his Institutes.

     "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of our ourselves.  But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern.  In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he 'lives and moves' [Acts 17:28].  For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God.  Then, be these benefits like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as rivulets to the spring itself...The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward....Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek good, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.
     Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself....As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly,...Suppose we but once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and to ponder his nature,...What wonderfully impressed us under the name of wisdom will stink in its very foolishness....what in us seems perfection itself corresponds ill to the purity of God."*


I'm 31, almost 32. I'm a cynic and a realist and though I'm out of energy, I am not out of hope (thanks to guys like Francis Chan and many more like him).



*John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Library of Christian Classics vol. 20, edited by John T. McNeill, translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) 1:35-39

Anxious Christians

"Don't Contextualize the Gospel" but what about the Copernican Revolution - who should we believe?

link to full version - The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ

Concept Creation Not Just Contextualization







Now what about N.T.







A little Thomas Kuhn helps us out here - "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"




The question is, does N.T. Wright's view encompass the robust nature of God's plan better than Piper's or does Piper's view satisfy?

I'm going to quote myself - eek

"The Gospel doesn't change, it grows with cultural engagement making theology the process of growing the Gospel instead of explaining it."

Ravi Zacharias answers a good question...or does he?

The question that this girl asks Ravi is a penetrating question.  His answer basically re-frames the question so that he doesn't have to answer what she is directly asking.  His answer considers mankind as spiritually dead, thereby making it unnecessary to consider our original goodness or the lack thereof.

The trajectory that he sets sounds solid but it ultimately ignores Creation and the doctrines derived from Creation.  When we were created we were given worth and value and were commissioned out of our created identity to steward Creation as representatives of God himself.  This image-bearing requires us to frame our understanding of what this young woman asked more than what Ravi answered with.  His answer wasa true but he did avoid the question by using anecdotes, his own clever questioning and a re-framing of what he thinks is more important to consider.  It really seems like he wanted to re-orient the discussion according to his convictions, making the question seemingly wrong-headed.  There exists a fundamental faux-pas with this re-framing effort, but before we unpack why, let's look at another mistake he made.

2/3's of the way through the answer, He makes an audacious claim when he says that "this [Christianity] is the only faith in the world that talks about a supernatural regeneration."  Timothy Tennent, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, disagrees.  In his book, Theology in the Context of World Christianity, Tennent writes about a contrary example,

"two important branches of Vaishnava Hinduism are the Vadagalais and the Tengalais.  The Tengalais teach that salvation comes through a total surrender to the sovereignty  of Lord Vishnu and a full and complete trust in his bestowal of unmerited grace." (pg 135)

Later on he writes about the same kind of dynamics that exist in certain strands of Buddhism.  Tennent finishes his chapter on this subject by concluding,

"Regardless of the source, we should learn to expect doctrines of grace rather than be surprised by them.  Certainly this chapter should provide sufficient information to dispel the often-repeated myth that only in Christianity do we find a doctrine of grace and all other religions know only about a doctrine of works and the hope of the accumulation of merit..."  (pgs. 158-159)

As a trained theologian and one who claims to have consistent debates and conversations with men and women of other faiths in his defense of Christianity, it is surprising that can make such sweeping statements regarding the beliefs of other faiths and get it so wrong.  Much of Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions do teach autosoterism (the belief that one can save oneself) but that has also been true of Christianity in certain historical epochs lasting for centuries.  Christianity has in effect led many people astray during eras when unmerited favor from God was not understood to be the center of Christ's message.  We must not castigate other religions for things that we ourselves have historically committed.  It is possible that certain sects of Hinduism were teaching unmerited favor from their own God while at the same time, we were not.  Regardless, Ravi's cavalier statement needs redressing for sure, not only because he was wrong but because it is offensive unnecessarily.


Coming back to his re-framing of the young lady's question, we must ask why did he do it?  The problem with his response is that he does not begin with a Creational theology but only a theology of the Fall.  A theology of Creation include the Fall but definitely does not begin with it.

The Bible does not begin at Genesis 3, but at Genesis 1.  Our perception of reality should always be framed by what God did rather than what we did.  What Adam and Eve did was in response to what God did and said and then he responded to what we did and said, but it's important to remember, He was the first to act.  That act, Creation, is what sets the agenda and everything said and done in that act sets the agenda.  All of Creation is very good - period.

Given the opportunity, I think I might ask him this, "Are we created to be redeemed or are we redeemed because we were created?"  It seems like it would be hard to get around that but he probably would be able to.  Either way, God's first speech-act of Creation is what sets the trajectory and establishes our foundation for viewing humanity and doing theology.  For this post, it establishes that we are to view all of humanity primarily through the lens of their Creational goodness, regardless of their regenerated or un-regenerated status.

Ravi's re-framing of the question happens to be set upon a redemption-centered orientation, not a Creation-centered orientation.  By beginning his response upon the foundation of the spiritual deadness of humanity, he gives away his truncated view of humanity.  Because he begins with their spiritual deadness rather than their spiritual vitality given to them through the breath of life and then the resulting pronouncement of goodness they received, he fails to answer the question adequately.  Yes, it's important to know what the problem with humanity is, and yes that is Ravi's edge, but is he beating a spiritually dead horse?  With all due respect, I believe so and it would have been nice to hear him just answer the question, because like he said when he started, "it's a good question."

10 most of the year

I recently read through a few blogs that are recapping on the year. One recapped on what he read in different genres while the other recapped what he wrote on his blog over the last bit, focusing on the highlights. I was wandering if I should do the same and then that little part of me that wants to be original said - nah!

I just received the highest cumulative semester GPA I've ever received - 3.78 on a 4.0 scale. That is exciting in a lot of ways because I've never seen that high of a score next to my name before and yet it was a bit anti-climatic as well.

I'm realizing that I'm at the end of my graduate degree, which I started in 2004 (it will have taken fours years with 3 years of breaks to travel and get married in-between). After a short-lived celebration over my good grades I felt less accomplished than I ever have before. I know, I know, it's the old story of searching for something endlessly, getting it and then feeling empty. I don't think that's what this is all about.

I'm going to sound full of myself but with all my hard work and love for academics - I still feel like I'm underachieving. There are still so many books to read, curricula to write, conferences to attend, etc... Yet for what? I love study and writing and teaching and opening up ways of thinking that help people to think instead of staying trapped in conventionalism yet every step I take forward, there is a field filled with landmines of discovery - places I'm afraid to go because if I do, I'll never get to see the rest of the field.

I also sensed an emptiness when I realized that my professors are paid to read my papers, but that doesn't mean they like what they are reading or would read it on their own time. They aren't even allowed to really dislike what I've written unless they do it professionally. Either way, there is no room to communicate their own visceral reactions to my work, when that's what I'm writing for. I hope that writing and research hasn't become an attention getter for me. I hope my neediness doesn't come through the medium of what I've written.

Like all true writers, I want to inspire, to create, to unearth and to introduce, to unveil, to make laugh and to make cry, to draw the real, visceral self to the surface for one still moment and and see the reader not fear who that person is. Maybe I'm too much, maybe I'm not enough, maybe navel gazing causes indigestion, mabye it's just not time and maybe it never will be. I like something hopeful to finish thoughts that I write but then that little part of me that wants to be original will just say - nah!

Here's to 2011 - a toast to all those who don't feel like they get the response they wanted, who write from their heart only to receive a paid in full GPA, for those who want to be recognized and praised for their work but fear the first critic too much or for those who just plain don't care what others think of them but can't seem to motivate themselves otherwise. What you write is yours - thank you for sharing.

The Heidelberg Project