Both Social Justice & Evangelism On The Rise For Millennials

Photo Credit: Merrimack College

According to recent research from the Barna Group, the perception that Christian Millennials (those born in the early 1980's through the early 2000's) are big on social justice but wary of evangelism might not be accurate. Here is what Barna found:

"They've been called "the social justice generation," and for good reason—Millennials are actively taking up the cause of the poor, the oppressed, the orphan and the widow. Yet the most common critique leveled at this surge in social compassion is that it comes at a great expense. Sure, skeptics argue, they might feed the hungry and free the captives in this life, but what about the next? According to this view, Millennials are elevating physical needs over spiritual needs and forgoing evangelism altogether. 

Yet the latest Barna research reveals this is not the case. 

In fact, in answer to the question of evangelism on the rise or in decline, Millennials are a rare case indeed. While the evangelistic practices of all other generations have either declined or remained static in the past few years, Millennials are the only generation among whom evangelism is significantly on the rise. Their faith-sharing practices have escalated from 56% in 2010 to 65% in 2013. 

Not only that, but born again Millennials share their faith more than any other generation today. Nearly two-thirds (65%) have presented the Gospel to another within the past year, in contrast to the national average of about half (52%) of born again Christians. 

Since tracking began in 1996, the data show born again Busters, who are currently in their thirties and forties (63%), were evangelizing at an all-time high in 1998. However, evangelism practice among Busters is down to 48% today. Among the Boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964), nearly two-thirds of born again Boomers (65%) shared their faith in 2007, but today, this has dropped to less than half (49%). The outreach efforts of born again Elders (ages 68 and older), on the other hand, have remained fairly steady over the past several decades. Today, Elders (53%) share their faith just about as much as the average born again Christian (52%)."

I'm thankful that I have the privilege to invest in the lives of this generation of young people.

To read the rest of the findings please click here.

How The Gospel Radically Affects Our Relationships

Photo Credit: Gerry Balding

The men's small group Bible study that I'm a part of through our church is nearing the end of our time in Tim Keller's Galatians study. Pastor Keller has the ability to help the biblical text come alive in a way that speaks right to the heart. I also think his understanding of what the gospel (good news of Jesus) represents is unparalleled.

Look at what he has to say about how a true understanding of the gospel will affect how we view ourselves and our relationships with others:

"The gospel creates a whole new self-image (Galatians 5:26, 6:3-5) which is not based on comparisons with others. Only the gospel makes us neither self-confident nor self-disdaining, but both bold and humble. Because of the gospel, we neither earn our worth through approval from people nor through power over people, so we are neither overdependent on others, nor afraid of commitment and vulnerability. That works itself out in relationships with everyone. 

The gospel is the only thing that addresses conceit, the vain-glory. To the degree I am still functionally earning my worth through performance (i.e. to the degree I am still functioning in works-righteousness), to that degree I will be either operating out of superiority or inferiority. Why? Because if I am saved by my works, then I can either be confident but not humble (if I am living up) or humble but not confident (if I am not living up). In other words, apart from the gospel, I will be forced to be superior or inferior or to swing back and forth or to be one way with some people and another way with others. 

I am continually caught between these two ways, because of the nature of my self-image. But the gospel creates a new self-image, as we have seen previously. It humbles me before anyone, telling me I am a sinner saved only by grace. But it emboldens me before anyone, telling me I am loved and honored by the only eyes in the universe that really count. So the gospel gives a boldness and a humility that do not eat each other up, but can increase together. 

We have seen previously that there are two equal and opposite errors that oppose the gospel: “legalism” and “antinomianism” which we can call here “moralism” and “hedonism." How does the gospel provide a “third way” in relationships?  

Moralism often makes relationships into a blame-game. Why? The moralist is very consciously trying to earn salvation through performance, and that includes relationships. Moralists must maintain a self-image of being “a good person.” Now some moralists do so by laying the blame on others, by being very judgmental and by always insisting that they are in the right. There is a lack of teachability, humble admission of error or listening. But moralists can also play the blame-game by laying the blame on themselves. Moralists can “earn their salvation” and convince ourselves we are worthy persons through being very willing to help others. This kind of self-salvation superficially makes the moralist look very open to listen, very humble, very teachable. 

But this can be co-dependency, a form of self-salvation through severely needing people’s approval or through needing people to need you (i.e. saving yourself by saving others). So moralism works through either blaming others or blaming yourself. Either way, it makes relationships torturous.  

On the other hand, hedonism reduces relationships to a negotiated partnership for mutual benefit. Hedonism says: “A relationship is fine as long as both people are helping each other reach their goals.” But as soon as a relationship entails major sacrifice, the hedonist labels it dysfunctional and bails out. (There are dysfunctional relationships but only when the sacrifice is being done out of needy selfishness and not out of fullness of love.) So, for the hedonist, you only relate to another as long as it is not costing you anything. So the choice (without the gospel) is to selfishly use others or to selfishly let yourself be used by others. But the gospel leads us to do neither. We do sacrifice and commit, but not out of a need to convince ourselves or others we are acceptable. So we can love the person enough to confront, yet stay with the person when it does not benefit us... 

Outside the gospel we are either confident (if achieving) or humble (if failing), but in the gospel our new self-image produces a bold humility that changes all relationships. Without the gospel, your self-image is based upon living up to some standards — whether yours or someone’s imposed upon you. If you live up to those standards, you will be confident but not humble. If you don't live up to them, you will be humble but not confident. Only in the gospel can you be both enormously bold and utterly sensitive and humble, for you are both perfect and a sinner! Paul shows us that this new, unique self-image changes all relationships. “Don’t be conceited — provoking or envying each other.” (Gal.5:26). 

Because we are humbled by the gospel, we don’t “provoke” or approach anyone with a sense of superiority. Because we are powerfully loved in the gospel, we don’t “envy” or approach anyone with a sense of inferiority. The gospel keeps us from being either codependent on, or independent of, people. Both approaches are essentially selfish ways to earn our value through relationships. Now we do not need to have people serve our needs nor to serve theirs. So we are free to sacrifice and commit, but also to love the person enough to confront."

This gospel is the good news that "we are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.” (Tim Keller)

Why Is One Of The Wise Men Depicted As Being Black?

Photo Credit: kinikkin reims

 From Root.com:

"Matthew states only that “wise men from the East” brought the Christ Child presents of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Over time, biblical commentary certified their number as three, interpreted the Magi as both astrologers and kings and provided names for them: Gaspar, Balthasar and Melchior. 

In addition they came to signify broader attributes, expressed in triadic fashion. Considered to exemplify the three known continents of Europe, Asia and Africa, they also encompass the progression of human life from youth, middle then to old age. In a manner unique to the subject of the Adoration of the Magi, they stand as a microcosm of the medieval conception of the world and its inhabitants. 

The inclusion of a black man as one of the kings had undergone a long and tenuous process that evolved along with the European engagement with people of other parts of the world, and just as significantly, with the symbolic concept of blackness itself. As early as the eighth century, Balthasar was described as “fuscus,” that is, dark, perhaps even black. Only in the second half of the 14th century, however, does this designation more clearly occur, when John of Hildesheim wrote his influential Historia Trium Regum, or History of the Three Kings. Shortly after this, the black king began to be depicted in works of art. We have no way of knowing the name of the black king in Bosch’s painting here, but the other important aspects of his identity are clear: his youthful age, his African origin and his gift of myrrh. 

This particular treatment of the Magi theme is unusually rich in symbolism. During the medieval scholastic movement, a large body of scriptural interpretation had developed. As a whole, the Adoration of the Magi is presented here as the prefiguration of the Mass, the principal church ceremony that celebrates the sacrifice of Christ for the expiation of the original sin of Adam and Eve. In its details, the imagery associates the birth of Jesus with foreshadowing events of the Old Testament. The cloak of the middle king, for example, bears a representation of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon, king of Israel. She symbolizes the Gentiles, or pagan peoples, who voluntarily search for holy wisdom. According to the exegetical strategy of Christian typology, she stands for the response of the world to the message of Jesus and thus prefigures the Adoration of the Magi. That she is also shown as black here adds the further dimension of race to the usual context of faith and conversion. 

The extremely sympathetic, nuanced character of the black Magus in Bosch’s Adoration of the Magi has his counterparts in several other examples produced by primarily Northern European artists during the same period. The noble bearing imparted to the black king by Bosch’s contemporaries Albrecht Durer and Hans Baldung Grien manifests the same sense of gravitas and measured grace as the white-robed king in the Prado altarpiece. In this period, the representation of the black king reached an apogee of probity and self-composed magnificence rarely equaled in later treatments of his presence at the Adoration of the Magi. The role played by style in this assumption of the essential humanity of the black man may also have been affected by the position of the real African in the European consciousness at this time. 

Like many Europeans, Bosch quite likely had seen an actual black person. The notion of blackness at this time was largely associated with the exotic qualities of a still largely unexplored African subcontinent. Whatever the actual condition in life of blacks living in Europe may have been, their living image was capable of conjuring faraway tropes of African authority such as Prester John and the young Magus."

To read the rest of the article please click here.