by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Duffy Robbins
One of the questions I’m often asked with regards to youth Bible studies or Sunday night youth group messages is: “How should we decide what to teach?” We talked in the last issue of Good News about how to develop a youth ministry teaching curriculum. The key emphasis there was balance: we want to make sure that we’re not teaching repeatedly on the same pet topics over and over again, reproducing our own personal blindspots, and leaving our youth group kids undernourished because they’ve been exposed to only a few of Scripture’s many food groups.
Clearly a balanced diet of biblical truth is important for growing Christians.
But still, it’s often confusing when we try to sort out when to teach what, where, and to whom.
Mosaic Teaching. The best way to approach a question like that is to recognize that no one youth meeting stands alone. Every meeting we plan, every lesson we teach, every activity we do is a part of the larger mosaic of our youth ministry program. What that means, in one sense, is that every tile of the mosaic has to fit in with the overall big picture. A lot of us just piece together all these neat little tiles of “youth stuff” without really considering how it all goes together. What we end up with looks like a mosaic piece that was dropped on the ground, and then was hurriedly put back together. There’s no coherent picture. To maximize the impact of each individual lesson or study, we’ll want to give some thought to how a given study on a given night ties in with a devotional on another night, and how those two lessons tie in with other elements of your program.
There are lots of different ways of doing this, and the best one is the one that works best for your ministry. But, if this is a new concept for you, here’s a simple way to think “big picture” about your ministry. Let’s say, for the sake of simplicity, that there are three broad pieces to a balanced youth ministry environment: outreach, nurture, and leadership development, and your speaking at various times will reflect each of these three emphases.
• Outreach: speaking targeted to unchurched students;
• Nurture: speaking targeted to students who have made an initial commitment to Christ, and now need motivation and training for growth;
• Leadership Development: speaking aimed at students (and adults) who are willing to own some leadership vision for the ministry.
Thinking in terms of these three broad pieces can help you maintain balance and purpose as you plan Bible studies and talks for a given three to six month period. One way to conceptualize it is to think of the year in terms of youth ministry “seasons”—to recognize that certain times of the year lend themselves better to certain types of ministry emphases, and therefore to certain types of topics and themes when you teach.
This could vary by region of the country and even by community, but just as an example, Fall seems like a natural time to do outreach. In the Fall, you have a lot of kids who have never come to youth group or club before. They’ve just moved up to a new grade, they’ve just moved into the area, they’re joining new organizations, new groups—they’re just open to a change. And this emphasis on outreach would be translated into every facet of your ministry—the topics you do in small groups, the thrust of your leadership training, the way you shape a Fall retreat, your ministry to parents—everything. And, it’s reflected in the topics you teach on. Each piece of the mosaic is part of a larger picture.
And then, let’s say, by mid-October, when the main thrust of any beginning-of-the-school-year emphasis on outreach begins to level off, that would be a reasonable time to then shift gears and speak on topics and themes that are more related to nurture. It’s not that a ministry from that point on would ignore outreach. If a student comes and says, “Can I accept Christ?” you’re not going to say, “uh…well, that was last month.” But there is a shift in emphasis, and that’s reflected in the way you plan your teaching topics. And again, this shift in emphasis is woven through every facet of the program so that in some ways what is happening in small groups, or in Sunday school, or in mid-week club is setting the table for the talk or study you’re doing in a given week.
The concept is more important than any actual calendar dates. The idea is to use the natural tides of your ministry to help you plan your topics.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Liza Kittle
The 2009 local church statistics* from the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) are in. United Methodist Women (UMW) lost 45,151 individual members and 488 local units in one year. (*Numbers reported from GCFA run one full year behind.)
The annual membership loss in UMW reflects a pattern that has taken place for several decades, but much more significantly in the past several years. Since 2006, UMW has lost over 72,000 members and over 1,200 local units.
According to GCFA, the current membership of UMW at the end of 2009 stood at 594,808 with 18,963 local churches reporting UMW units.
These numbers are taken from individual local church reports which are required by the United Methodist Church and therefore represent a highly accurate assessment. The Women’s Division, the governing body of United Methodist Women, is not required to report their membership numbers to GCFA, as they operate differently from other church entities. The Women’s Division continues to maintain that UMW membership totals “more than 800,000.” In 1974, UMW had a membership of 1.36 million women.
With the female membership of the UM Church remaining fairly stable at about 4.4 million, the new UMW membership numbers mean that only 13.5 percent of the women in the denomination belong to United Methodist Women.
This is quite shocking due to the fact that United Methodist Women is the only officially sanctioned women’s ministry program in the UM Church. What about the other 86.5 percent of the women in the UM Church? Sadly, due to pressure from the Women’s Division, United Methodist leadership refuses to listen to the heart cries of most of the women in the denomination.
Currently, the Book of Discipline requires that every local church “shall” have a United Methodist Women group. For twenty years, Renew and the women of the church have waged a spiritual battle with the Women’s Division at General Conference to have the Discipline changed to read that every local church “may” have a UMW group. This new language would not “tear down” United Methodist Women, but give women more options in forming other types of women’s ministry programs.
Changing that one little word in the Book of Discipline has proven a herculean task. The first year the language change was proposed, the vote was very close when brought to the main floor of General Conference, as many delegates saw the benefit and logic of a variety of women’s ministry options.
In subsequent years, however, the Women’s Division has waged an all-out battle to maintain the original language. Why would anyone disapprove of offering other options for women, especially as the needs and gifts of women are so varied in today’s world? This question has remained both puzzling and frustrating in the minds of laity and clergy for years.
While many larger churches have vibrant women’s ministry programs in their local churches and ignore the UMW requirement in the Book of Discipline, it remains a greater challenge for medium and small membership churches. Pastors and women in these churches feel threatened by violating the Discipline, so they continue to struggle along even as their membership dwindles and fruitfulness diminishes.
Many district superintendents and bishops even pressure their clergy to stand by the language and don’t provide encouragement or support for women who desire other ministry options. Without official endorsement from annual conferences and the General Conference, vibrant women’s ministry will continue to be maligned and discouraged.
How is the Women’s Division able to sustain so much power and influence over women’s ministry? There are several reasons. One reason is the Division maintains a virtually separate structure from the other boards and agencies, which allows them to operate autonomously within the church. While currently the Division comes under the mantle of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), that relationship has become less symbiotic as the Division has withdrawn its annual gift of 10 million to GBGM. The Division does however still maintain a 40 percent representation on the GBGM Board of Directors.
Current economic conditions and impending restructuring of general boards and agencies haven’t seemed to affect the Women’s Division. Not only has the Division taken several programs under their wing from GBGM such as the Deaconess Program, the National Mission Institutions (which the WD owns), and Community Ministries personnel and programs, but their 2011 budget reflects staff additions and increased administrative costs. A current breakdown of the 2011 budget of the Women’s Division can be downloaded from the Renew website (www.renewnetwork.org). The Women’s Division continues to be a powerful autonomous force within the United Methodist Church even as their membership dwindles.
Another important reason for the powerful influence of the Women’s Division lies at General Conference. The Division is allowed to host the orientation session for female delegates, whereby they tell the delegates which legislation they favor/disfavor and instruct them on obtaining powerful positions in legislative committees. This “orientation” gives the Division an unfair advantage and access to delegates before the first plenary of General Conference even begins, making substantive disciplinary changes difficult.
While United Methodist Women has a great historical legacy, its sole position as the only avenue for women’s ministry is growing increasingly unrealistic and unacceptable. The falling membership numbers of the GCFA report bear this out.
With a new emphasis on building vital congregations over the next decade, a new emphasis on strong women’s ministry options must be a priority of the church. Each local church has a group of unique women with unique needs and gifts. Every local church’s women’s ministry program should reflect the diversity of the women it serves and equips for ministry.
If we are truly the church of “Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Doors,” this motto should apply to women’s ministry as well. It is time for the bondage placed on the women of the UM Church by the Women’s Division to end. In a few years, if statistics continue to show these sharp annual declines in UMW membership, the church will face a crisis. Women want vital women’s ministry and if it’s not available, they will find a church home elsewhere. Please join Renew in advocating for the women in the UM Church who desire a variety of women’s ministry options.
Liza Kittle is the President of the Renew Network (www.renew-network.org), P.O. Box 16055, Augusta, GA 30919; telephone: 706-364-0166.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Steve Seamands
In the American church and in our culture in general, we are so accustomed to seeing crosses on church buildings or in sanctuaries, wearing them on chains, or carrying them in processions that it’s virtually impossible for us to grasp the utter horror that the very mention of crucifixion provoked in the Ancient World. “Do you sell gold crosses?” a customer inquired in the jewelry section of a Denver, Colorado, department store. “What kind would you like?” asked the clerk, as she pulled out one of the trays, “A plain one or one that has the little man on it?” For most of us, the cross is an endearing, often sentimental, religious symbol that evokes positive feelings.
Originally, however, when the apostles preached about the cross it was the absolute antithesis of that. Far from being a religious symbol, originally the cross was shocking, revolting and offensive, a disgusting irreligious symbol if there ever was one. Since the typical Methodist today is largely unaware of this, it is important to recover, what the apostle Paul calls, the “scandal” of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:23). What has become so familiar to us needs to become strange again. As Fleming Rutledge puts it:
“Not even the celebrated film by Mel Gibson, The Passion of the Christ, can convey the full ghastliness of crucifixion to a modern audience. We don’t understand it because we have never seen anything like it in the flesh. The situation was very different in New Testament times….Everyone knew what it looked like, smelled like sounded like—the horrific sight of completely naked men in agony, the smell and sight of their bodily functions taking place in full view of all, the sounds of their groans and labored breathing going on for hours and, in some cases, for days. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that no one cared.”
We tend to associate the horror of crucifixion with agonizing physical pain—what Mel Gibson so vividly portrayed in his film. And it’s no accident that our English word, excruciating, is derived from crux, the Latin word for cross. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes it like this:
The wounds swelled about the rough nails, and the torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. . . . The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. . . The suffering was so frightful that ‘even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited.’”
Yet despite such unbearable physical agony, people in Roman times dreaded the shame associated with crucifixion even more. Since crucifixion was reserved for the dregs of society, outcasts, slaves and common criminals, the fact that one was crucified defined him as a miserable, wretched being that didn’t deserve to exist. By pinning them up like insects, crucifixion was deliberately intended to display and humiliate its victims. It was always carried out in public, often at a prominent place such as a crossroads, outdoor theater or hill. Crucifixion was a spectacle event, a grisly form of entertainment where men and women jeered and heaped ridicule upon the victim. The public mockery of Jesus during his crucifixion (Mark 15:29-32) was typical. The fact that those crucified were completely naked added to the shame. So did the fact that they were often denied burial and became food for vultures and other scavengers.
Crucifixion, then, was deliberately designed to be loathsome, vulgar, revolting and obscene. That’s why, although common in Roman times, it was rarely mentioned in cultured literary or social settings. Crux was a four-letter word, not to be used in polite company. Cicero, one of Rome’s greatest philosophers, said that no respectable person should ever have to hear it spoken.
The hideous shame associated with crucifixion was the main reason why the message of the cross seemed ludicrous to its original hearers. As Paul put it, “When we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense” (I Corinthians 1:23). To proclaim that someone hanged on “the tree of shame” was the Savior of the world or the Messiah was bizarre, disgusting–sheer madness.
Alister MacGrath likens the early Christian preaching of the cross to a modern business or corporation choosing a hangman’s noose, lynching tree, firing squad, gas chamber or electric chair as its logo. What advertising agency would advise you to choose an instrument of execution as the symbol of your organization? “Its members would instantly be regarded as perverted, sick, having a morbid obsession with death, or having a nauseating interest in human suffering….Only an organization determined to fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible would be mad enough to choose such a symbol.”
But that’s exactly what the early Christians did. They made it the centerpiece of their preaching. As Paul reminded the Corinthians, “When I first came to you I didn’t use lofty words and brilliant ideas to tell you God’s message. For I decided to concentrate only on Jesus Christ and his death on the cross” (I Corinthians 2: 1-2). As strange and outlandish as it seemed, they were convinced it was the supreme demonstration of the power and wisdom of God.
The scandal of the cross helps us understand how God works to accomplish his redemptive purposes in the world. As God declares through the prophet, Isaiah, “My thoughts are completely different from yours…And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine” (Isaiah 55:8).
The cross reveals that God’s upside down kingdom is often downright offensive to us. God uses that which the world considers despicable and weak to manifest his power. What does that say about our desiring strength as the world counts strength? Or our attempts to downplay or soften the offense of the cross?
The scandal of the cross also reveals who God takes sides with. By allowing himself to be “counted among those who were sinners” (Isaiah 53:12), crucified between two despicable criminals, God casts his lot with the poor, the powerless, the wretched, the dispossessed of the earth. Liberation theologians speak of God’s “preferential option for the poor.” What is seen throughout scripture–God’s concern for the helpless, the outcast, the widow, the orphan, the fatherless and the oppressed–is impossible to miss when the Son of God hangs on a cross between two thieves.
And of course, all this has profound implications for us and our churches. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, if he suffered “outside the city gates,” in the garbage heap, the place of disgrace, among the reviled, “so let us go out to him outside the camp and bear the disgrace he bore” (Hebrews 13:13). We too are called to be involved with the lowest and the least, the despised and the dispossessed of the earth.
John Wesley came to understand this in a profound way when, about ten months after his heartwarming experience at Aldersgate, he embarrassingly descended into field preaching on April 2, 1739. Here’s how he describes the event in his journal: “At four in the afternoon I submitted to be more vile and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation speaking from a little eminence in the ground adjoining to the city to about three thousand people.”
Until then, Wesley had been a strict Oxford don who was concerned that things be done “decently and in order.: That meant preaching should happen in a pulpit in church buildings. Finicky about his personal appearance, he couldn’t tolerate a speck of dirt on his clothing. He hated commotion and disturbance, preferring the quiet of a university library to the noise of a large crowd. In the light of his personal preferences, no doubt field preaching for Wesley was “submitting to be more vile.” Although he would continue to engage in it throughout his life, he never became fully comfortable with it. As late as 1772 he admitted, “To this day field preaching is a cross to me.”
It was a cross to Wesley, because in “submitting to be more vile” he had, in effect, recovered and was participating in the scandal of Christ’s. What would happen if we Methodists today, following in Wesley’s footsteps, “submitted to be more vile”—regardless of what it means in our day and time? What would happen if, in following in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus, we would recover, both in our understanding and practice, the scandal of his cruel, ugly cross?
Stephen Seamands is Professor of Christian Doctrine at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Ky. This article is adapted from a chapter in his forthcoming book to be published by InterVarsity Press.
