Point Preaching Students and Q Union

Christian colleges and universities like Point are constantly asked “how many preachers are you graduating?” I often want to respond with “as many as you will send us to educate” but of course that would be viewed as a bit on the rude side of things.

The real answer is “not enough.” That answer is rooted in the reality that faithful, biblical commitment to Christ and His kingdom will never be “enough” until at least every person on the planet has had a fair opportunity to hear the truth about Jesus.

I am more grateful than words can express that I get to teach in a university where preaching is important. I even get to teach some in the area of preaching and ministry alongside of amazing colleagues. But I’m also thrilled that at the place where I get to teach, we actually believe in the biblical idea of the priesthood of all believers and have the audacity to think that every graduate of Point ought to be engaged in kingdom ministry!

I could give dozens of example about that idea – but let me offer one that makes the point. A few years ago a business graduate decided to go and spend a year in the residency program at Christ Church of the Valley in Arizona – with whom Point has a partnership. He finished the program with flying colors and is now coaching cross-country at Point. He doesn’t have a preaching degree, but please don’t tell me you don’t think he isn’t doing ministry! Like all Point graduates, he does have a minor in biblical studies to go along with his business degree and benefited as well from his experiences at CCV. 

I could tell you about a counseling graduate who is doing campus ministry with Globalscope today. Or lots of teachers in public school systems who not only excel as teachers, but take the light of the world into their classrooms every day. I could tell you of another counseling major who is in India doing ministry right now and several students in law school because they believe that our justice system is in dire need of help.

None of that discounts the importance of preaching majors – but it does remind us of how important the “stand-along-side-of” nature of ministry really is. To not recognize that and think that “only preaching students matter” is to revert to a kind of clergy system that the Reformation – 500 years old this month – pushed back.

But . . . let me tell you about three of our preaching major students. 

For the second year, Point was privileged to host a local gathering of Q Union – a part of the Q Ideas group. Led by Gabe Lyons, Q is helping the church  honestly address and talk about important, but often difficult issues.

The theme for last night’s Q Union was “Healing Our Divided Nation.”  Through a video feed, our students were able to hear David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, talk about “Cultivating Virtue.” They heard Kara Powell, executive director of Fuller Seminary’s youth initiative, talk about “Addiction to Technology.” They heard Christian rap artist Propaganda talk about our “Critical Moment” as a culture and nation.

But they also were privileged to hear three Point students speak. Isaiah Ross, a senior football player, spoke on the theme “Unlikely Neighbors.” Abbigail Contreras, a senior cross-country runner, spoke on the idea of “Restoring Human Dignity.” Colby Freeman. a senior doing youth ministry in the area, spoke on “The Color of Kingdom.”

All three are graduating either in December or May with degrees in biblical studies and preaching. At Point, that is a pretty academically challenging degree, and all three have exceled in this program. At least one of these students will do the residency program at CCV next fall, but I have no doubt that all three are kingdom impact kind of people.

Two things stood out to me last night as I listened to them speak. First, they are really good preachers. Their abilities in communicating truth are impressive. Second, each one of them had something to say – reflecting the idea that a Point graduate in preaching is prepared not only to stand up in front of a crowd and say something – but to actually have something important to say. Third, they are living in a world of the past where so many pretended that the real issues weren't real. Their “nine minute talks” – a Q requirement – reflected four years of good education, a life-time of thinking about the kingdom, and a passion to make the world a better place. 

As the person who was responsible for the Q Union event, I had to pick three students to speak. The challenge was not “can I find three who will do a good job?” but “how do I pick three and not a lot of others?” And I had the same challenge last year when we hosted Q Union – “which three among many do I pick?”

I’m going to stick with my answer above: “not enough.” There really aren’t enough students like Abby, Isaiah, and Colby – and countless others like them at Point. But the simple truth is that if it weren’t for Point, there might not be an Abby, Isaiah, and Colby – and countless other students who are determined to make a kingdom impact on the world.

If you want to check me out and see if I’m telling the truth, you can check Point’s website and social media sites and listen to the sermons. But, a word of caution – don’t do that unless you are willing for three very fine young adults to push the Jesus story upfront and challenge you!

“And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod” Nehemiah 13:24Back in the 1990s I remember reading William Willimon’s Peculiar Speech: Preaching to the Baptized along with his The Intrusive Word: Preaching to the Unbaptized. What I most remember from reading those two collections of Willimon sermons is that language is important. Greatly gifted in the use of sarcasm, Willimon says, “Forgive Christians for wanting to name the world as something other than K-Mart.” (Peculiar Speech, page 78) More recently, Willimon’s colleague at Duke, Stanley Hauerwas, has published his newest book The Work of Theology. There is a whole chapter on “How to Write a Theological Sentence.” Hauerwas uses one of his own theological sentences to frame the discussion. “The first task of the church is not to make the world more just; the first task of the church is to make the world the world.” (page 138) He then says “The sentence does not imply that Christians have no interest in justice, but it does mean that Christians have no idea what justice may entail unless we first know what it means to be ‘the world.’ In fact, the world cannot know it is the world unless there is an alternative to the world.” (page 138) In Tim Keller’s excellent book, Center Church, the sections on contextualization and learning how to be distinctively Christian without being viewed as “anti-cultural” are outstanding and thought provoking. One of my favorite principles he notes is “Actively engage the city/culture, while avoiding cultural captivity in all its forms (cultural fundamentalism and withdrawal; cultural relativism and syncretism).” (page 247) Neither withdrawal nor syncretism are good options for those who follow Jesus and whose hope it is to make a difference in the world in which we live. Yet both exist. Each of us have likely been guilty of withdrawal or syncretism at least a time or two in our lives. Awareness that there are some guilty of syncretism causes those who prefer withdrawal to an even deeper sense of withdrawal; and the fact that there are those comfortable in withdrawing from culture tempts to a level of cultural relativism that makes it difficult to distinguish between the gospel and culture. To use Nehemiah’s language noted above, those who would withdraw hardly know there is a language of Ashdod – an issue fraught with its own unique challenges; and those who would practice syncretism have somehow come to think that the language of Ashdod is so much better than the language of their own faith. If Hauerwas is correct – the world can’t know it is the world until it knows there is an alternative to the world – can the church risk hiding its vocabulary from the world (withdrawal) or giving up its vocabulary for the vocabulary of the world (syncretism)? I can’t imagine a context in which either of those options makes a lot of senses. Yet we are surrounded by those who are so rigidly biblical that no one will listen to them on the one hand; and those who are so culturally relevant on the other hand they have nothing to say. In both cases, the gospel goes unheard. As ironic as it may be, Nehemiah’s concern about the language of Ashdod is expressed in the context of his concern about marriage. Nehemiah and Ezra (9, 10) have been seriously concerned about Jews marrying non-Jews. Apparently their concerns have gone unnoticed by at least some of the people, and now Israel’s children are speaking the language of Ashdod and not Israel. Would it be too much of a stretch to suggest that in the era of Nehemiah and Ezra, Israel’s refusal to accept God’s definition of marriage created a world where “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod?” And if that is true, then is it fair to suggest that the issue on both sides of this equation is one of language? On the one hand, a redefinition of marriage; on the other, leaving the language that identifies them as God’s people behind. For me, the issue with same-sex marriage is not so much that out of nowhere same-sex individuals are having sexual relations with one another. That’s not a new phenomenon. I would doubt that there are more same-sex couples today than there were before the Supreme Court ruling of June 2015. The issue for me is that if we change the definition of marriage, will we soon be speaking the language of Ashdod. When we change languages, do we change allegiance? In Peculiar Speech, Willimon – while not talking about same-sex marriage in any way – says “When a preacher disposes of baptismal speech in favor of psychological speech (Robert Schuller’s ‘Be Happy Attitudes’ or ‘Self-Esteem’), or secular politicized speech (mainline Protestantism’s ‘Peace with Justice’), the preacher has not thereby transcended the community-bound nature of language. The preacher has merely moved, in speech, from one community to another.” (page 79) On a broader plane, I wonder what sort of impact our tendency to adopt the world’s vocabulary – whether “psychological speech” or “secular politicized speech” – will have on our identity as the community of God’s people. I am not fond of the rigid “secular v. sacred” distinctions that some (withdrawal) wish to make; but neither am I fond of the idea that there isn’t a unique Christian vocabulary (syncretism) that should be at the heart of how we describe our faith, our worship of God, and our relationship to the world around us. For example, I’ve been to more than a few weddings – Christian ones, they said – where if you threw out a prayer or two and didn’t tell the Jesus at the wedding in Cana of Galilee story, you would not know it was any different than a courthouse wedding performed by a justice of the peace. Genesis 1 says that God spoke the world into existence, and from that moment forward it seems language has been important. Our ability to use language is a uniquely human gift. Our commitment to use it well may very well speak to our willingness to love God with all of our mind. If my prayer language sounds more like a poorly written Facebook post than it does a conversation with the God who made the world and everything in it (Acts 17), maybe I need to stop and think for a moment. If my favorite way of describing deeply spiritual values is to use the language of the world over God’s language, maybe I need to stop and think for a moment. If I’m willing to redefine important spiritual words in the name of spiritual relevance, then maybe I need to stop for a while, not just a moment! Most importantly, can we make “the world the world” if we give up on God’s vocabulary?Back in the 1990s I remember reading William Willimon’s Peculiar Speech: Preaching to the Baptized along with his The Intrusive Word: Preaching to the Unbaptized. What I most remember from reading those two collections of Willimon sermons is that language is important. Greatly gifted in the use of sarcasm, Willimon says, “Forgive Christians for wanting to name the world as something other than K-Mart.” (Peculiar Speech, page 78) More recently, Willimon’s colleague at Duke, Stanley Hauerwas, has published his newest book The Work of Theology. There is a whole chapter on “How to Write a Theological Sentence.” Hauerwas uses one of his own theological sentences to frame the discussion. “The first task of the church is not to make the world more just; the first task of the church is to make the world the world.” (page 138) He then says “The sentence does not imply that Christians have no interest in justice, but it does mean that Christians have no idea what justice may entail unless we first know what it means to be ‘the world.’ In fact, the world cannot know it is the world unless there is an alternative to the world.” (page 138) In Tim Keller’s excellent book, Center Church, the sections on contextualization and learning how to be distinctively Christian without being viewed as “anti-cultural” are outstanding and thought provoking. One of my favorite principles he notes is “Actively engage the city/culture, while avoiding cultural captivity in all its forms (cultural fundamentalism and withdrawal; cultural relativism and syncretism).” (page 247) Neither withdrawal nor syncretism are good options for those who follow Jesus and whose hope it is to make a difference in the world in which we live. Yet both exist. Each of us have likely been guilty of withdrawal or syncretism at least a time or two in our lives. Awareness that there are some guilty of syncretism causes those who prefer withdrawal to an even deeper sense of withdrawal; and the fact that there are those comfortable in withdrawing from culture tempts to a level of cultural relativism that makes it difficult to distinguish between the gospel and culture. To use Nehemiah’s language noted above, those who would withdraw hardly know there is a language of Ashdod – an issue fraught with its own unique challenges; and those who would practice syncretism have somehow come to think that the language of Ashdod is so much better than the language of their own faith. If Hauerwas is correct – the world can’t know it is the world until it knows there is an alternative to the world – can the church risk hiding its vocabulary from the world (withdrawal) or giving up its vocabulary for the vocabulary of the world (syncretism)? I can’t imagine a context in which either of those options makes a lot of senses. Yet we are surrounded by those who are so rigidly biblical that no one will listen to them on the one hand; and those who are so culturally relevant on the other hand they have nothing to say. In both cases, the gospel goes unheard. As ironic as it may be, Nehemiah’s concern about the language of Ashdod is expressed in the context of his concern about marriage. Nehemiah and Ezra (9, 10) have been seriously concerned about Jews marrying non-Jews. Apparently their concerns have gone unnoticed by at least some of the people, and now Israel’s children are speaking the language of Ashdod and not Israel. Would it be too much of a stretch to suggest that in the era of Nehemiah and Ezra, Israel’s refusal to accept God’s definition of marriage created a world where “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod?” And if that is true, then is it fair to suggest that the issue on both sides of this equation is one of language? On the one hand, a redefinition of marriage; on the other, leaving the language that identifies them as God’s people behind. For me, the issue with same-sex marriage is not so much that out of nowhere same-sex individuals are having sexual relations with one another. That’s not a new phenomenon. I would doubt that there are more same-sex couples today than there were before the Supreme Court ruling of June 2015. The issue for me is that if we change the definition of marriage, will we soon be speaking the language of Ashdod. When we change languages, do we change allegiance? In Peculiar Speech, Willimon – while not talking about same-sex marriage in any way – says “When a preacher disposes of baptismal speech in favor of psychological speech (Robert Schuller’s ‘Be Happy Attitudes’ or ‘Self-Esteem’), or secular politicized speech (mainline Protestantism’s ‘Peace with Justice’), the preacher has not thereby transcended the community-bound nature of language. The preacher has merely moved, in speech, from one community to another.” (page 79) On a broader plane, I wonder what sort of impact our tendency to adopt the world’s vocabulary – whether “psychological speech” or “secular politicized speech” – will have on our identity as the community of God’s people. I am not fond of the rigid “secular v. sacred” distinctions that some (withdrawal) wish to make; but neither am I fond of the idea that there isn’t a unique Christian vocabulary (syncretism) that should be at the heart of how we describe our faith, our worship of God, and our relationship to the world around us. For example, I’ve been to more than a few weddings – Christian ones, they said – where if you threw out a prayer or two and didn’t tell the Jesus at the wedding in Cana of Galilee story, you would not know it was any different than a courthouse wedding performed by a justice of the peace. Genesis 1 says that God spoke the world into existence, and from that moment forward it seems language has been important. Our ability to use language is a uniquely human gift. Our commitment to use it well may very well speak to our willingness to love God with all of our mind. If my prayer language sounds more like a poorly written Facebook post than it does a conversation with the God who made the world and everything in it (Acts 17), maybe I need to stop and think for a moment. If my favorite way of describing deeply spiritual values is to use the language of the world over God’s language, maybe I need to stop and think for a moment. If I’m willing to redefine important spiritual words in the name of spiritual relevance, then maybe I need to stop for a while, not just a moment! Most importantly, can we make “the world the world” if we give up on God’s vocabulary?

Consider Jesus

When I was a freshman in college, the first semester actually ended about three weeks into January. We had exams and then were “out of class” for a day or two. During that brief period, student life sponsored a spiritual formation program at night and the college invited a guest lecturer to come in and speak in the mornings. 

The speaker my freshman year was a scientist named Dr. George Schweitzer, who worked at the Oak Ridge atomic facility and was a distant cousin of the great Albert Schweitzer. He was also a committed Christian. I didn’t have great science classes in the little country high school I attended – and even if I had it wouldn’t have made a difference because I really didn’t care a lot about learning in those days. But someone I was very interested in science – and Dr. Schweitzer intrigued me.

He said some things that I knew, even as a relatively dumb freshman, that weren’t the normal things I had heard Christians say. From the questions some of the older, more educated students were asking, I could tell that he didn’t always say the party line they expected him to say.

I can still remember his last session like it happened yesterday. He spent the last fifteen minutes or so allowing students to ask questions. The questions were creating a little tension in the room and I remember thinking some of those questions were pretty rude – in tone at least.

Finally Dr. Schweitzer said, “I need to leave for the airport, but I want to leave you with one important piece of advice.” He then said, “Stand firm on the Jesus event, hang lose otherwise.”

For me, that was one of those “light bulb moments” where I thought that you could be a Christian, have a brain, and be inquisitive. I grew up in a very Christian family – but we didn’t have a lot of rules about what that meant. I could go fishing on Sunday afternoon, or even to the movies. If necessary, you could mow the lawn, or if there was threatening weather, harvest corn, cotton, or soy beans on Sunday! The cows on the dairy farm were milked twice a day, Sundays included.

I grew up where it was acceptable for our church to participate in holy week services with all the other churches around and we even served real wine for communion. Sometimes it seems as though Vacation Bible School was schedule in consecutive weeks so all the kids could go to all the VVS programs. The same was often true of revivals.

But the student handbook I received my freshman year in college frowned on much of what I had grown up with. I felt a bit trapped in a world that I didn’t know existed.

Here comes Dr. Schweitzer. “Stand firm on the Jesus event, hang lose otherwise.” I had some options.

Nearly fifty years later, I’m still thankful that I heard him say that. It put into words how I think my godly parents raised me in the faith. 

Just a few days ago this story popped back on the front burner of my brain. I’m teaching an exegetical course on the Epistle to the Hebrews. At the beginning of chapter three, as the author writes to people who seem to be considering walking away from Jesus and back to their previous life, whoever wrote this incredible epistle says, “Consider Jesus.” (Hebrews 3:1) He goes on to describe Jesus as the apostle and high priest of our faith, he is superior to angels and Moses so far in Hebrews, and the answer to the challenge of walking away is simple: “Consider Jesus.”

I don’t do bumper stickers and I have never had to manage one of those church signs where you have to put up a new clever saying each week. But if I were to be responsible for a bumper sticker campaign or had to put up a saying on the church sign, I could do no better than to simply say “Consider Jesus.”

To all the racists who passed by that sign – what better advice could I give them than to say “Consider Jesus.” To the drug dealer going into an urban blighted neighbor to sell drugs, “Consider Jesus.” To a couple on the way to an abortion clinic because they simply can’t see another option, “Consider Jesus.” To a business man or woman not treating his or her employees justly, “Consider Jesus.” To a district attorney who operates in punishment mode, not justice, “Consider Jesus.”

To the guy I saw when I first looked into the mirror this morning, “Consider Jesus.”

Some might say, “how naively simplistic.” 

I’m going to reply, “The Jesus story is the power of God unto salvation.”