Comments on: a ’round the table about the young life evangelism ruckus

By: marie

marie — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:25:41 +0000

I agree with you, J. I believe it’s the book of Jude which says that some have used the grace of God as a license to sin…

By: J

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:46:16 +0000

I have been in evangelistic youth ministry for years. Personally, I’m tired of teens that are super-confident of God’s Grace, who have no idea of the cross or repentance or faith or the rest.

New Years eve this year, I got another taste of it, as I was told that “God will forgive me” by a teen whose entire household was preparing for a huge drunken binge all night (her boyfriend was already drunk, and it was only 7 pm or so!). But that’s ok, I’ll see her Sunday?? No concept of faith, or trust, or repentance, or new life, or regeneration, or…….

I’m not fond of absolutes, or of making rules where Christ made none. But I have been in the trenches long enough to know that we have raised an entire generation on super-high self-esteem (pride), self-determination to the point of rebellion, and grace that’s so cheap that even the old theological “cheap grace” is harder to gain!

Grace isn’t cheap anymore, it’s assumed. No one needs to gain it since it’s already there. Cheap would mean it had at least a LITTLE cost. Now it has NO cost at all.

At least the old cheap grace position asked you to believe in the cross as payment for your sin before you were saved. That’s at least SOMETHING.

If Young Life, in desperation, decides to make a hard and fast rule in order to steer their ship in the proper direction, so be it. Again, I’m not a fan of rules like this. But I can’t blame them for trying to stem the tide a little.

Talking about the cross before the sin that put Him there is basically a guarantee that the cross will not be properly understood, and YL is trying to correct that. I can accept that, warts and all.

By: Oregonian

Oregonian — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:05:22 +0000

yes, Marko, that’s it! Ahh, the memories come back . . . So what was the name of the books that they put out then? I’m thinking crowdbreaker kind of resources. I know we used them in Campus Life.

By: marko

marko — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:50:42 +0000

oregonian — denny r was more than a close friend of yac’s back in the day; he was a part-owner of YS at one point, early on!

By: Oregonian

Oregonian — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:44:07 +0000

Jennifer, yes I do hear the difference. The first non-negotiable that YL states is, “We proclaim the Person of Jesus Christ in every message.” To me, that most certainly includes his love for us. How could it not?

I worked for a number of years in the other major high school non-denominational org, Campus Life, so I understand the relational aspect. Way back then, I know that we often felt that YL was short on content in their school year club meetings (might have just been in our own region) and tended to wait until the BIG summer camps to really present Jesus. I’ve not kept up with YL in the years since then, but I don’t fault them for attempting to ensure that their staff is on the same page with what they’re calling non-negotiables.

Marko, wasn’t Denny R good friends with Yaconelli? I’m thinking waaayyy back when.

By: marko

marko — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:56:33 +0000

fair enough, td — i did not do much fact checking on this, which is why i didn’t pontificate much at all, just listed a series of links. my facts could very well be way off. i have, however, read all the links i posted (which includes the current version of “the non-negotiables”), as well as an earlier version, and a couple of the counter-papers that others have written (but i haven’t found online, so i couldn’t link to them — like the one co-authored by noted sociologist and author, christian smith).

By: td

td — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:46:19 +0000

May want to check your facts, Marko. Not exactly accurate presentation. No YL staff was asked to sign the paper. The Durham staffer’s paper has been circulating for years, long before the YL manifesto. The staff was not fired because they wrote a paper in response.
I am interested to read your comments, but please, I would beg that you do more research. Read the nonnegotiables. Talk to someone in leadership at YL, and please talk to one of the Durham folks–or even read the paper.

By: marko

marko — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:34:08 +0000

matt — in response to your question: i wouldn’t prescribe where it should go. i don’t like formulas.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:02:14 +0000

Dan,

I dont think either group is saying you need one, and not the other. they’re both saying you need both. The workers are saying that it just makes more sense to talk about incarnation first, since they are a ministry that tries to live incarnationally in front of kids. The debate (as far as I understand it) is about the freedom to not HAVE to start with sin, even though sin is still an important aspect.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:46:10 +0000

As Winnie the Pooh says: “Oh Bother!”

You can’t have one with out the other. Maybe YL wants it that way because, it (sin) does not get mentioned. It’s great to be evangelistic, but fluff and stuff Christianity is not the whole story or the right way.