Skip to main content

Comments regarding "Age of Opportunity"

In another week or so, I am set to begin a 3-week block class entitled, "Philosophy of Youth Ministry." When I saw the books to be used, I was excited. The first was, "Age of Opportunity" by Tripp. I had heard of the book and I am pretty sure my church has used it in a parenting class. But I had never read it.

So, I am through the first chapter now. If the rest of the book builds on that, (and I suspect it will) it will be a great read.

Through other reads (Scripture and other books), as well as talks with pastors and youth workers, I have become increasingly aware that our confessional theology and our practical theology are incongruous when it comes to dealing with teens. In other words, what we would say we believe does not align with what we actually believe, which is revealed by what we practice.

Tripp says in his book (chapter 1, obviously) that most (probably 99.9%) parents see child-raising as a survival contest. Tripp consistently argues that the teen years are minimally an "Age of Opportunity." (hence the title) For anyone who ever reads this, filter the typical comments that you hear/have heard from parents into this analysis. Having analyzed them, would you say parents (or churches for that matter) see teenage years in 'opportunity mode' or 'survival mode'?

Back to my thesis of incongruous theologies, we preach (I hope at least...) a limitless Gospel. We would agree that the Gospel is the only way a person is changed, yet in our practice we show that we are really practical unbelievers, because we primarily concern ourselves with persuading our teens to adopt an external Gospel, where they are viewed as 'ok' because they can look, talk like, and act like 'Christian school kids.'

I love Tripp's focus on the Gospel in the opening chapter. On page 24, he states: "This time provided many opportunities for listening, love, encouragement, and the Gospel."

He discusses in some length the 'cultural cynicism' that Christian parents have adopted. (By the way, this is a quintessential example of what Paul means when he says in Romans 12:1-2 "Don't be conformed to the world, but (all of you) be transformed by the renenwing of your mind." To see the teen years as an 'aggrevation' or an 'incovenience' or even a 'survivial period' is to adopt the very attitude of people who hate the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must REJECT this model.

As a sort of antidote to this worldly epidemic, Tripp states:
"If we are to be his instruments, we must deal with our own idolatry and bring a robust, Biblical faith to each rocky moment , a faith that believes that God rules over all things for our sake, that He is an ever-present help in trouble, that He is at work in every situation accomplishing His redemptive purpose, and that His Word is powerful, active, and effective." (Tripp 27)

We show what we believe when we wake up each morning. With every frustrating situation that presses us, we reveal whether we actually believe what we confess to believe. Instead of "surviving," we must be transformed by having our minds renewed by the Gospel.

Popular posts from this blog

USA v. Ghana: Line-up & Prediction

This is the most interesting game of the tournament as far as what is at stake. The USA need a win by at least 3 goals if the Czech and Italians were to tie. If Italy were to beat the Czech, all the USA would need is a win. Here is my "best-bet" line-up: GK - Keller D - Bocanegra, Gooch (yc), Cherundolo MF - Beasley, Reyna (yc), Dempsey, O'Brien, Donovan F - McBride, E. Johnson Notes: - 3 in the back will force play outside; Dempsey (RWM) and Beasley (LWM) are fast enough to play both ways - Midfield control will be the most crucial factor to a multi-goal win. We will not counter-attack well with the speed of the Ghana side. Also, if we don't control the midfield, Michael Essien will. - I think McBride and Johnson are the best bet up front. McBride receives the ball well. Johnson's size, quickness, and skill will serve us well. - A big question is who will play Def. MF. With no Mastroeni, we resort to either Dempsey or O'Brien in a 3-5-2 formation. SUBS: - Con...

Don't be 'Joe Fan'

The response from Wednesday's USA last minute thriller versus Algeria felt like the crest of a crescendo that had been swelling since 2000 or so, or maybe even 1996 at the outset of MLS. My favorite US Soccer fan type is 'Joe Fan' who only watches soccer for 1 month out of every four years. He knows general soccer lingo. He even knows the favorites to win the tournament. None of these, though, is his calling card. You'll know Joe Fan by this very one thing -- as the World Cup is discussed among him, he'll whip out his anti-USA soccer spiel that he's been working on all week, or worse -- the one he heard from Michael Wilbon on PTI the previous afternoon. Most Joe Fan-types have these things in common: They think soccer is boring because there isn't much scoring. Soccer isn't even as big as hockey in the US, so it must not matter much. He thinks that since the USA isn't a top 10 favorite to win the World Cup, they must not be any good. He sees the USA ...

Favre Talking Points

I was a closet Green Bay fan in high school, mainly because of some big-time Packer fans in my church. Granted, it was easy to pull for them, since they weren't rivals with America's Team -- that's right! What intrigues me the most is that three teams took different approaches to Brett Favre, and I believe they would've have been mistaken to respond differently. Packers were criticized (as was Favre) for not letting Favre come back. I'm sure there are still some detractors that would say Favre would've won more games than Rodgers (6). What's interesting is that Aaron Rodgers QB stats (other than wins) were better than Favre's. The point is that, the Packers weren't going to win the NFC last season, with or without #4. They could be a Super Bowl team in 2-3 years. The Packers made a great move by parting with Favre. It couldn't have happened better for them. Jets are a bit more troublesome to parse apart. The only thing that makes them look foolis...