• /
    • Archives /
  • November 30, 1999

Archives For November 30, 1999

I scream. You scream. We all scream at Osteen.

Meredith Flynn —  September 18, 2014

COMMENTARY | Chase Abner

Note: This article originally appeared on Collegiate Collective, a new resource that features articles, podcasts, and videos designed to equip leaders to advance the gospel on college campuses.

Chase_Abner_calloutI’ve been around collegiate ministry for about eleven years. In those years, I’ve been witness to all sorts of public hubbub on the world stage of evangelicalism. At first, there was the challenge posed by Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code.” Then there was a lot of back-and-forth about the Emergent Church and how post-modernism was going to erode all of Christendom. And that was just a precursor to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” and the battle for the doctrine of hell. And Mark Driscoll has been the subject of his fair share of controversies. Throw “The Shack” and Calvinism into the mix and you’ve got yourself enough blog fodder to last you until the other side of eternity.

Early on, I somehow got the impression that a big part of my job as a campus minister was to help students be on the “right side” of all these public controversies. I read a lot of blogs and way too many blog comments. I sought out what side my heroes were on. I studied the Bible hard and I tried to provide my students with all the right answers.

However, there was one big problem.

They weren’t even asking the questions. Most of them didn’t even know who Brown or Driscoll or Bell or Calvin was. They were more concerned about passing their biology test or paying tuition in the spring or what they were going to say to their roommate struggling with depression.

So I gave up. I stopped trying to be up-to-date on the controversy of the day. I decided that if it wasn’t something that was directly impacting my students, then I wouldn’t bother with it.

And guess what? I found that I had a lot more time to hear from God, rather than about Him from someone on a podcast. I found that I was freer to hear the questions the students actually had, rather than the ones I forced on them. And I found that it’s a lot easier to follow Jesus when you’re not fighting over Jesus.

So last week, a video of Victoria Osteen made the rounds. If you didn’t know, she is the wife of America’s most famous mega-pastor Joel Osteen. The clip is from a sermon in August wherein Victoria makes some…how do you say…provocative claims about proper motivation for obeying God. (If you haven’t seen it yet, then count yourself blessed and forget I mentioned it.)

Here’s what naïve Chase would’ve probably done in response to this clip if it had come along in my early days of ministry: I would’ve torn the thing to bits, shared all the parody videos, and read every blog that critiques the Osteens’ errant theology. I might’ve even used one of the parody videos in our weekly gathering or taught an entire lesson in response. In other words, I would’ve wasted a lot of time doing battle against something that had virtually zero influence on the people in my care.

Let me suggest this template for responding to public Christian controversies in your collegiate ministry context.

  1. Pray for the individuals caught in sin or espousing false teaching.
    • Example: Pray for the Osteens and those influenced by their teaching ministry.
  2. Examine yourself in light of Scripture.
    • Example: Ask God to show you where you have selfish motives in your obedience to him. Repent as necessary.
  3. Listen to your students. Respond when necessary.
    • Example: If your students aren’t being influenced by the controversy, then press on in your disciple-making as if nothing has happened. If they have questions about it, then address the controversy.

You see, as you focus your energy on developing mature Christians who believe and apply the gospel to all of life, they will be equipped to address the counterfeits on their own. If at times, the controversies catch their attention and your students have questions, then embrace those as teachable moments. But remember, they are just that—moments—and not the normal pattern for your ministry.

Most of all, avoid the temptation to define yourself and your ministry by what you’re against. Is the gospel exclusive? Yes. Does God draw some hard lines in Scripture? Yes. But most clearly, he reveals himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ who gave most of his energy on earth to proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom.

Chase Abner is Collegiate Evangelism Strategist for the Illinois Baptist State Association.

In Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Is sweet debate a pie in the sky?

Meredith Flynn —  February 28, 2013

cherry pieCOMMENTARY | On one special day every year, the Illinois State Capitol fills with the aroma of fresh-baked pie. Dubbed “Cherry Pie Day,” the event draws homeschooling families from across the state to Springfield, where they deliver the homemade desserts to legislators. It’s their way to thank lawmakers for their service, and to “sweeten the deal” while lobbying them on behalf of homeschooling interests.

Recently, a different group of volunteer lobbyists headed to the Capitol in support of a traditional definition of marriage. As the temperature outside hovered in the mid-20s, they prayed together under the gaze of a statue of Abraham Lincoln, and then streamed into the building to lobby their legislators to vote no on HB 10, the bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois.

A few steps from the gathering, a debate rose between a handful of the rally attenders, and two lone protesters who had come in favor of same-sex marriage. The dialogue bounced back and forth, intense but not ugly. Just each side having their say.

The speakers were eloquent, and each spoke directly from his or her experience. These were obviously well thought-out opinions, and deeply rooted. And, while they answered each other so quickly that they couldn’t have been listening very well, it was the very definition of a civil disagreement.

But it was still uncomfortable, especially compared to the rousing unity of the rally. As people walked by the small debating group, most of them kept a safe distance.

This is likely true of most conflicts, and it’s certainly been on display in the same-sex marriage debate in Illinois: It’s easier to express opinions – elegantly, even – with people who agree with you. But there’s nothing as messy as staring eye-to-eye with an opponent who fully believes he or she is right, on the very topic on which you believe they’re dead wrong.

That’s what the group on the Capitol lawn was doing. Both sides stared down the uncomfortable notion of disagreement and faced into the awkwardness of expressing an opinion, when someone was waiting to refute it with their next breath.

As Christians are navigating the difficulties of same-sex marriage in Illinois, surely many have wondered how they can “sweeten the deal” when they talk to their friends and families and acquaintances about the issue. Without the comfort of cherry pie, what can they add to their argument to help others see that it’s a valid view? How can they hope to turn the cultural tide with their words, when there are so many voices saying the opposite?

The answer was on display that day on the Capitol steps: It’s clear-eyed, unwavering, thoughtful, calm, prayed-through debate. And it will require courage and humility and a willingness to examine long-held beliefs. The only chance opponents of same-sex marriage have to add any sweetness to these conversations is to actually have them. Maybe over pie.

In Commentary , , , , ,
permalink