“Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of 'The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals' share at least one glaringly significant trait,” says Phillip Johnson, “For the most part, these are the fadmakers.” Johnson goes on to list a number of “cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable”, including the usual suspects such as Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye, and explains why their programs are “fads”:
Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard's movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven® merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.
Like Johnson, I'm concerned about the way in which evangelicals tend to embrace whatever trends and kitsch happen to be hot sellers at “Christian” bookstores. But while Johnson laments that most of the “stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date” I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is nothing more than a passing trend. It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny while fixtures remain largely unquestioned.
There are seven “fixtures of evangelism” that I find particularly harmful. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #7) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes. The seven fixtures are:
#1 The Sinner’s Prayer – The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a “ticket to heaven” because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the “sinner’s prayer.” Salvation, however, is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, “Christians” will discover after it's far, far, too late.
#2 The Altar Call – In the 1820’s evangelist Charles Finney introduced the “anxious seat,” a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting “the anxious may come and be addressed particularly…and sometimes be conversed with individually.” At the end of his sermon, he would say, “There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side.” The problem with this approach, as theologian J.I. Packer, explains is that,
The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment, as Finney supposed; and it is God’s prerogative, not the evangelist’s, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe. For the latter to try and do so, by appealing to sinners to begin believing here and now, is for man to take to himself the sovereign right of the Holy Ghost. It is an act of presumption, however creditable the evangelist’s motive’s may be. Hereby he goes beyond his commission as God’s messenger; and hereby he risks doing incalculable damage to the souls of men. If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God’s name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will will come forward and accept directions and “go through the motions” and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. So a crop of false conversions will result from making such appeals, in the nature of the case. Bullying for “decisions” thus in fact impedes and thwarts the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is “false conversions,” hypocrisy and hardening. “For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to “decide for Christ” at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.
#3 “Do you know Jesus as…” -- In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.
Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?”
For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. “Um, yeah, actually I have.” I finally managed in reply.
“Oh,” he said, visibly disappointed. “Okay, that’s good.” He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never saw him again.
This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is “yes” and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is “no” in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into “ignore” mode. Instead of asking about a “personal savior” you might want to simply try to get to know the person.
#4 Tribulationism -- Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of “the Rapture” and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" – an overemphasis on eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I’m sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.
#5 Testimonies – The story about how the “hound of Heaven” chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered is undoubtedly a story that would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime. Keep in mind, though, that you are only a bit player in that story and that the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead.
#6 Witnessing – Evangelism isn’t a form of Multi-Level Marketing. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the “Good News.” If you want to “witness for Christ” do what Christ did and love other people. Especially the “unlovable” – the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. In the context of the Christian life, “witness” should be a noun more often than a verb.
#7 Chick Tracts -- Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. ‘Nuff said.
The term “evangelism” derives from the greek word evangel – “good news.” So it’s rather odd how so much evangelism appears to be about “selling” Jesus and hoping that you can convince the unsaved heathen to “buy” into salvation. This was the way I had been taught during Vacation Bible School classes at the First Baptist Church of Fire and Brimstone. Pass out Chick tracts, recite the canned “how to get saved” speech, get them to say the sinner’s prayer. Above all, close the deal. They may die at any time and their souls would be lost to eternal damnation if I didn’t “make the sell.” At eight years old I was a cross between Billy Graham and Willy Loman.
Whenever I began to seriously read the Gospels, though, I noticed something strange. People constantly flocked to Jesus despite the fact that he never passed out a single tract. He would walk up to people and say “Follow me” and the next thing you know they're giving up their lives to follow him around the countryside.
The people responded to Jesus the way they did because he is God. He is what our hearts have always been seeking. When we come face to face with him we may accept or reject him. But we can’t not know him. Calvin claimed that there is an awareness or sense of God (sensus divinitatis) implanted in all people by nature. The context of this universally distributed belief being rather minimal: there is a God, He is the Creator, and that He ought to be worshipped. The Gospel, though, fills in the essential details.
We evangelicals don’t need tools of “evangelism.” We don’t need fads and fixtures. We don’t need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style.
Update: One note of clarification that I should have included in my original posting. To me the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. My primary complaint against these methods is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion much less helping make true disciples.
Update 2: Shane Raynor has some additional thoughts on these seven methods. Even though my buddy Shane is, what’s the word for it…oh yeah, Wesleyan, he still provides an interesting perspective. (I especially agree with #5.)
Update 3: Tim Thompson (another Wesleyan responds!) has an excellent addition to the discusssion.
Update 4: Jeffrey Collins (who I didn't realize was back from his blogging hiatus) has some thoughts on the matter (Jeffrey's from the church of Christ -- which I don't think is Wesleyan).
Update 5: Caving in to peer pressure, I will begrudgingly admit that #5 may not belong on the list. I'll also ease up on #2 and #6. But if you try to take #7 away it's going to get ugly...
Update 6: When I saw that Jared Bridges had chimed in, I thought it was a fellow Baptist coming to my aid. Instead he just asks, "Why do so many Baptist churches refer to the front of the church as “the altar?”
Update 7: Kevin Hedges (Wesleyan? I have no idea.) backs me up (sort of).
1
But the artwork of the Chick Tracts is such high quality that everyone needs a copy. Suitable for framing.
Come on Joe, all the cool kids are using them...
Big Chris
Because I said so blog
3
Right on, Joe! I have been think a lot about how evangelicals have missed the boat and preached a different Jesus. You summarized the ways they have missed their mark very well.
Thanks!
- Brian
posted on 07.28.2005 7:46 AM4
Hmmm, Interesting.
No mention of Calvinism!
Granted, Calvinism isn't a fad. Nevertheless it is harmful when people are more concerned about the thoughts of Calvin as opposed to Jesus.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:36 AM5
“For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to “decide for Christ” at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.
Luke 11.13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
Mark 16.15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
John 3.16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John 5.24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:44 AM6
in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into “ignore” mode...
Or encounter mode. Or compassion mode. We're not all that uncaring.
Chick tracts are a subject for a whole other post: while I find the theology abhorrent and hateful, I find the mindset of somebody who would creat such pulp "art" (can't find another word, but there must be) fascinating.
By creating what he did, Chick gave rise to a method of parody that, despite one's religious position, can be used to effect to make a polemic out of anything.
7
Great post!
I especially liked your section on tracts and how "Jesus didn't pass out tracts."
Going on further with that line of thinking, I wish evangelicals would actually stop and read the gospels again. Not just to glean new quotes for their sermons but really read it.
Part of Christ's appeal was how he challenged his audience. Sometimes he would only speak in parables, leaving it to them to interpret for themselves. He would oftn reverse the established social order by comforting the afflicted and being harsh to the rich and powerful. He would extend this level of abrasiveness to his own disciples when they were getting too comfortable or when stupidity seemed to possess them. And his greatest anger was directed at the sanctimonious.
And above all he wanted people to think for themselves. He wanted people to make the right choice but not because the message was drilled into their skulls or because everything was just spoonfed.
I wish today's evangelicals would emulate this. Drop the fads and catchy phrases. Drop the affiliation with the powerful. Speak to people's intelligence; don't spoon feed or assume an arbitrarily low level of discourse. Give an honest and intelligent message and people will respond.
Maybe these evangelicals would lose a lot of money by not having their latest drivel on the best-seller lists and I suppose they would miss the political power in the current system. But people would be reached for God, and shouldn't that be the most important thing?
posted on 07.28.2005 8:54 AM8
Joe,
I've been a fairly faithful reader of your blog for quite a while now, and while I sometimes disagree with what you say, I typically keep my mouth shut. However, this time, I just can't. You know why? Because I'm really sick to death of the bashing of, among other things, many of the very items that are reaching some of the unreached. Joe says "I don't like the 'Left Behind' series... yeah, we get it. Enough already. The books have sold countless millions of copies, and could have potentially reached thousands for Christ. But, that doesn't seem to be enough for you. No, they must be great liturature! Otherwise, they bunk. Excuse me, but, I completely disagree.
Yeah, some of the things you noted are "trends" - but you know what? They're reaching people. We did the '40 Days of Purpose' at my church - you know what - it REACHED ME. And, now I've given my life to Christ. They work. They might seem "gimmicky" to life-long Christians, but, they do work.
Excuse me if I rant here, but, frankly, I'm sick to death of Christians complaining about this, that, and the other with regards to how the church is working and reaching out to people. Did you ever consider that God's hand may be behind some of these "gimmicks?" Did you think that these might be a way to get folks to come to a corporate worship service, and to hear the Gospel?
You seem to dislike so many of these things, what ideas do you have to reach unreached people? Are you honestly expecting a non-Christian to sit down and read some lengthy non-fiction book about Chritianity? I just don't see it happening. Yet, more than 60 million LaHaye/Jenkins books were sold, and in them, they got the opportunity to at least get people to think about the afterlife, spirituality, and where they are with their own beliefs. This can't be a bad thing. Yes, they're not the best written books in the world, and yes, they're a bit cheesy. But you know what, they work, and they achieved more than anyone could have expected in their wildest dreams. I just think that you need to lay off being so critical of the kingdom.. we're Christians, and we're not perfect. But, with God's help, and in spite of ourselves, we can reach people with God's message, even with "trendy" and "gimmicky" methods.
posted on 07.28.2005 9:36 AM9
Emmaus:
I think the best sentence of your comment is the last one:
"But, with God's help, and in spite of ourselves, we can reach people with God's message, even with "trendy" and "gimmicky" methods."
It may be the case that some are reached with "gimmicky" methods, but it will indeed be in spite of the methods, not because of them. You asked Joe what plan he had for reaching lost people. I think his answer was in his post, and it has nothing to do with non-fiction books.
"If you want to “witness for Christ” do what Christ did and love other people. Especially the “unlovable” – the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic."
"Instead of asking about a “personal savior” you might want to simply try to get to know the person."
I don't mean to say that these are the only things that must be done. Obviously the message of the gospel must be shared. But the thing is, Emmaus, the gospel IS the power of God to salvation! Christians need to stop being afraid that sharing the pure, unadorned gospel is going to push people away, and that somehow we need to use modern marketing methods. It is not so.
Plant. Water. Watch God give the increase.
posted on 07.28.2005 9:53 AM10
Emmaus Because I'm really sick to death of the bashing of, among other things, many of the very items that are reaching some of the unreached.
Let me start by saying that on this point I completely agree. I too am tired of Christians bashing other Christians for accepting certain trends and movements. Anytime you mention Godblogs, PDL, the emergent church, or the guy who just sold a gazillion books, you’ll soon hear someone complaining about them. Success at anything by Christians will draw fire. But just because the criticism is often a knee-jerk reaction does not mean that it is completely unwarranted.
Joe says "I don't like the 'Left Behind' series... yeah, we get it. Enough already. The books have sold countless millions of copies, and could have potentially reached thousands for Christ.
A hurricane or earthquake can potentially “reach thousands for Christ.” But that does not make them good things.
But, that doesn't seem to be enough for you. No, they must be great liturature! Otherwise, they bunk. Excuse me, but, I completely disagree.
I never said that the LB series had to be great literature. But as Christians we should have a higher aesthetic standard, and such kitsch doesn’t fit it.
Yeah, some of the things you noted are "trends" - but you know what? They're reaching people. We did the '40 Days of Purpose' at my church - you know what - it REACHED ME. And, now I've given my life to Christ. They work. They might seem "gimmicky" to life-long Christians, but, they do work.
When have I dismissed the 40 Days trend? Have you seen my ads on the left?
Did you ever consider that God's hand may be behind some of these "gimmicks?" Did you think that these might be a way to get folks to come to a corporate worship service, and to hear the Gospel?
It’s always possible. But I definitely think there is an overemphasis on many of these “gimmicks” that is detrimental to sharing the Gospel.
You seem to dislike so many of these things, what ideas do you have to reach unreached people?
Um, share the Gospel? Share Christ? Something like that perhaps?
Are you honestly expecting a non-Christian to sit down and read some lengthy non-fiction book about Chritianity? I just don't see it happening.
You mean like “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis or “Basic Christianity” by John Stott? I think if you polled Christians you would find that more “conversions” resulted from non-fiction books like these than all the LB books combined.
11
Emmaus -
Some people actually buy products that they see on pop-up ads. Just because another "unit gets sold" doesn't make certain methods any less annoying, embarrassing, or sometimes just flat out inappropriate.
At least for me, it's not that I dislike that people come to Christ from gimmicky methods, it's that I worry about those who follow gimmicks into Christianity. I don't want them to be the seed that grows in shallow soil. Christianity isn't about converting people like on a massive conveyor belt. It's about introducing children to their long lost father and fostering an intimate relationship.
posted on 07.28.2005 11:03 AM12
Thanks for this list, and for this website. It's good to see some intelligent Christian discourse. It's good to see evangelism based on reason and not on emotionalism and Bible verse-quoting like some sort of incantation, a magic spell you're trying to cast on the unsaved.
I would add a #8 to your list: Over-focus on Creation. I'm hesitant to do so since I know that ID/Creationism is a common topic on this site. Nevertheless, just as it's a flaw in evangelism to focus too much on the last book of the Bible, it's a flaw to focus too much on its first 11 chapters. In the middle of the Bible, there's enough fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and blinding philosophical truth to make the document self-authenticating. As for Genesis, at least one interpretation of it is true; I don't care which one.
posted on 07.28.2005 11:24 AM13
Joe -- good post. But, you don't have to embrace Calvinism to be against Christian fads. I think people are "free," but that the mode & timing of communication can really make a difference.
Also, for those who justify gimmicks on utilitarian grounds -- that is short term thinking. We may be doing more harm than good to the culture and the church. Short term "success" shouldn't be our only goal. I think it can communicate to new believers that Christianity is like a fad diet -- it's all about "gimmicks" and "3 easy steps to ...".
14
- ...It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny while fixtures remain largely unquestioned.
Umm... Joe, as with any religion, and any other human activity, we are more prone to grab the silver bullet or quick fix than make the long trudge that yields real change. You obviously have thought long and hard about your faith, and I'm sure haven't even been tempted by Jabez, or its humanistic equivalents, but a lot of people can't be bothered.
They'll join the mega-church or buy the coolest toy, or vote the trendiest way. Fads come and go, so do great revivals. Meanwhile the real journey of life and the soul is one day at a time, one step at a time. And sometimes there's a soft wind, or warm sun on our face to encourage us on the way. Not as sexy as wearing a cool bracelet, or as entertaining as world-destruction porn, but there you go.
posted on 07.28.2005 11:44 AM15
Joe: When I read your post, I was amused. I, too, find myself wanting to pull back from the gimmicks. But then reading through the comments I also identify with Emmaus pulling back from wanting to attack what other believers are doing. I especially dislike it when Christians can be critical of other Christians by saying things like "those evangelicals", "those Catholics", "those fundamentalists" and then presenting what virtually no one supposedly being described would not view as a caricture of themselves.
I think even here I am being guilty of that which I decry: the tendency to be unduly critical of others without honestly evaluating myself to see if I ought not be removing the log in my own eye before I worry about the speck of sawdust in my brother's eye.
All that said, I really appreciated the quote from J.I. Packer. As always his work is worth reading and considering.
OT: you referenced John Stott, with whom I have only a passing familiarity. In a discussion I had with a pastor (which ultimately led to our family moving to another church), he presented his view on inerrancy/infallibility as being the same view held by John R. W. Stott, namely: the Scriptures can be said to be infallible inasmuch as through them God accurately presents everything He intend to communicate to us. The wiggle-room this argument leaves is that it allows us to decide what things God had no intention of addressing, which can then be viewed as nonbinding accretions to the "real" message of Scripture (i.e. "scientific" pronouncements such as the creation accounts; "cultural" accretions such as not ordaining female clergy or not blessing homosexual relationships.) Does anyone have any thoughts on how closely this actually comes to representing Stott?
posted on 07.28.2005 12:00 PM16
Good post, good points, #1-3. On tribulationalism and testimonies, they may be overused by those inexperienced at sharing the gospel, or who read mor LaHaye than the Spirit, I don't see them as hindrances- just annoyances. On witnessing- if you go and do good works, it is great, and the person may stand in awe of your generosity, but it means nothing unless the person knows that your obedience to Jesus Christ drove you to action. When you share Jesus, like you suggested in your response to Emmaus, are you not witnessing? If you are in a situation to share the gospel, and you get nervous, then having pleaded from your heart for the Holy Spirit to give you words and you say, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?'"; would it be your fault they didn't come to Christ? If you could've only worded it better...
I get tired of the gimmicks, catchphrases also. But the faithful servant, the one who is on his knees before God, pleading in earnest, in tears, for souls to be swept into the Kingdom, will not be able to contain within his heart the good news proclaimed to all mankind...awaiting those called and drawn by God to respond in faith...to pick up their cross...
posted on 07.28.2005 12:05 PM17
Just to add credence to Joe's point above, my reading of "Mere Christianity" on a Greyhound bus from Lubbock to College Station, Texas was a pivotal time in my spiritual awakening.
posted on 07.28.2005 1:19 PM18
Joe: But as Christians we should have a higher aesthetic standard, and such kitsch doesn’t fit it.
Why? We read from my 4-year-old's "God and Me" bible every night. It's a bit "kitschy" - but, it helps her to understand God's message.
Why should adult liturature be any different? I just don't see how this point stands up.
posted on 07.28.2005 1:36 PM19
Joe: You mean like “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis or “Basic Christianity” by John Stott? I think if you polled Christians you would find that more “conversions” resulted from non-fiction books like these than all the LB books combined.
Maybe so. I don't have actual numbers either way. But, I would suggest that, due to the fact that C.S. Lewis' books have been around for decades, versus the LB books being around for only a few years could also contribute to any disparity.
20
Joe: Um, share the Gospel? Share Christ? Something like that perhaps?
How do you propose doing this on a mass scale? I take it that it's a given that (hopefully!!) most Christians are trying to share their faith with people in one-on-one relationships.. their friends, neighbors, family members, etc. But, how about getting the attention of the masses? How do you fight the unending secular assault on our faith in the mass media? By getting up and sharing the gospel? I think it's a fantastic idea, and if we only had a few more Billy Grahams around, we might be able to actually do that. But, IMHO, in order to capture the minds of the mass-media-consuming public, you have to learn to harness "trends" (if you will) that help people to understand that Jesus is still relevant in their lives.. that He's not just some "great teacher" from a dusty old book sitting in the corner of their grandmother's living room. Jesus has to be made "real" to people..
I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling on here, but, for example, I see and feel the excitement of younger folks at my church during our "emergant" service on Sunday nights... it feels like we're reaching them for Christ. I just can't see how that can be all bad or wrong? Don't you have to come out and meet people where they're at?? They don't have the mindset of a biblically conservative Christian - they have the mindset of a corrupt, fallen culture. They need to see that Jesus is there for them, even in their modern, everyday lives.
Another example.. I think that modern Christian music, the stuff you hear on "WAY" or "The Fish" is great.. it's reaching out to teens and young adults spreading God's message. But, it seems like the undercurrent of you post here is that this "trend" isn't good, and that we, as Christians, should frown on it. I think that it's great! It's not only good music, but, it also carries God's message, again to the potentially unreached.
If it gets them to even think for a few minutes about Christ's message, then, maybe one day they'll begin to turn away from their ways, and turn back to God.
I also agree with the end of your post.. the Gospel is the most important message that we should be trying to communicate. We should all be living out our "witness" each and every day, with our neighbors, friends, etc. I dunno... maybe that's enough. It just seems to me like there has to be some type of concerted effort by the church to reach out in a bigger way to folks - to counter Satan's hold on the unreached.
posted on 07.28.2005 1:54 PM21
Emmaus "I see and feel the excitement of younger folks at my church during our "emergant" service on Sunday nights"
See and feel is ok as long as it is not against Scriptural revelation. The question is, in the emergent movement, "what are you reaching the teens with?" The emergent movement is characterized by a disparaging, or even wholesale dismissal, of key doctrines of Scripture. IF you are reaching them with Christ, what Christ? The Christ that believes in hell and talked about it, or the one that dismisses it? The Christ that expected obedience, suffering, and picking up your cross, or the whatever" Christ?
The message, like the faith, is only as strong as the object in which it is placed. And the whole of Scriptural revelation reveals the character and nature of God and Jesus Christ. Dismissal of any of it dismisses the gospel.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:02 PM22
Phil: At least for me, it's not that I dislike that people come to Christ from gimmicky methods, it's that I worry about those who follow gimmicks into Christianity. I don't want them to be the seed that grows in shallow soil. Christianity isn't about converting people like on a massive conveyor belt. It's about introducing children to their long lost father and fostering an intimate relationship.
Sure.. but, once again, how do you propose to do this? I mean, not to pick on you, but, this is the same rhetoric you hear everywhere. No one doubts that the ultimate objective is to get folks the message of the Gospel. But, the point I'm trying to make is, why does it matter, necessarily, how people are exposed to that message?
I hear so many smarmy Christians taking a "tut-tun" nose-turned-up attitude toward a lot of the work that's being done in these "gimmicky" ways. I just have to say "so what?" If it's reaching people, then, the real problem comes down to keeping those people. The way I see it, you can't reach everyone in a singular gimmick, but, you can reach some.
The biggest issue I see facing the church isn't reaching people, it's keeping people involved and "plugged in" - in otherwords, evangilism isn't the problem.. fellowship is.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:06 PM23
Colin: I belong to a biblically conservative church... the message at our emmergant service is the exact same message that is given during all of the other services. What is with you guys? I mean, man, you guys have a really rotten attitude toward some things! Just becasue you've see it done "wrong" in one place doesn't mean it's done that way everywhere!
Have some faith that God will nurture the branches that are fit to grow, and will trim the dead ones off.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:12 PM24
Emmaus:
You must understand the theological baggage that accompanies a term like "emergent church". It is not a simple worship style- it is a theological movement that you and your church, since conservative, would be highly critical of.
I suspect your worship service isn't emergent- i.e. embracing postmodernism- but more along the lines of contemporary.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:16 PM25
Look.. I don't mean to be overly-argumentative will y'all, but, bottom-line, I just don't like to hear all the belly-achin' and back-biting. When it really comes down to brass tacks, who cares? People might not being doing everything "right" - but, if it's God's will, the right message will get to the right folks at the right time. Let's not worry so much about how the message gets delivered, but, what the message is. That part of Joe's post I totally agree with. But, hammering on Christian thrillers, or the guy that's handing out tracts, that just seems plain counter-productive. I say, if you don't like it, get out there and find your own way that works, with God's help. But, I just think that criticizing others for their methods is just plain silly.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:18 PM26
Colin: By "emergent" - I don't mean a "movement" - I mean, the "emergent church" - teens and young adults who are coming up behind us. If you're meaning something else, then, perhaps we're dealing with some "regionalism" here.. it might mean something different in my geographic location then in yours.
If I misunderstood what you were saying, you have my sincerest apologies. For me, when I'm talking about the "emergent church," I'm talking about the younger generation. So, when someone criticizes people for trying to reach the "emmergent church" I have to wonder why they, themselves, are not trying to reach them, too, and on their own grounds.
Again, any misunderstanding is my fault, and you have my sincere apologies.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:23 PM27
No apologies necessary. By your definition, yes...we all should be reaching to those emerging behind us.
posted on 07.28.2005 2:42 PM29
Jordan Shane is Armenian or Arminian??!
I think he is either an Armeniam Arminian or an Arminian Armenian. I'm not sure which. I do know for a fact, though, that he is a Weslyan. ; )
posted on 07.28.2005 3:02 PM30
Yes, I suppose that was a "false dichotomy," (which Yak Shaving Razor was that again?), it just never occurred to me one could be BOTH an Armenian AND an Arminian. ;-)
posted on 07.28.2005 3:16 PM31
BTW, I forgot to put in earlier that this is a good post all around; it's much appreciated.
posted on 07.28.2005 3:22 PM32
Joe, I'm with you on several, but not all points. Most agreeable is #6. When Bethany House asked me to write a book on how a man shares his faith, I told them it had to be an "unwitnessing" book, with a good dose of P.J. O'Rourke style humor. The book turned out great (according to both people who bought it).
Most DISagreeable is #5: Since when is it a bad thing to tell a friend what happened to you? Isn't the "word of their testimony" a powerful ally to the "blood of the Lamb" in overcoming? I just can't figure any context in which you're right on this one.
posted on 07.28.2005 3:22 PM33
Jim Most DISagreeable is #5: Since when is it a bad thing to tell a friend what happened to you? Isn't the "word of their testimony" a powerful ally to the "blood of the Lamb" in overcoming? I just can't figure any context in which you're right on this one.
Fair question. And as I noted, the method isn’t inherently wrong. But consider this:
You have two “testimonies”, one extremely dramatic and one that is downright dull. Both contain the same core elements – God and a sinner. Now which one is likely to be more “effective?” The first one, right? But in both the important point is how God acted, not the circumstances of the sinner. So why is the first considered more effective?
I’m not denying that some testimonies may be effective. But I think we have to be careful of equating anything that can be effective for initiating conversions with being necessarily above reproach.
34
I think the author (Joe) was meaning that #5, personal testimony, like the others on the list, is too heavily relied on as a replacement to the gospel message. In my mind, God gave us the life of Christ recorded in scripture so we could know Him. And we receive the Holy Spirit when we ask Christ to live inside of us so we can live like Him. So personal stories about God's transformational power in one's life should be used to evidence the gospel not replace it. In other words, use your own experience to emphasize the meaning of the Christ's life on earth and how God's plan is designed.
posted on 07.28.2005 4:00 PM35
The body of Christ has many didfferent members, each with different gifts. Joe might be part of the cerebral cortex of the body of Christ, coaxing others to consider God with multi-syllabic discourses. Others may be gifted evangelists with an inferior command of language, debate, and reasoning. If I say: "God is great. He died for bad folks. They were all bad but God still let his Son die for them. Now those bad folks have been made good, and they all get to live for the rest of time with God," is it ineffective because there are no words with more than one syllable?
Use your gifts, and pray to God that he draws people to you that will discover Him through your particular gift.
36
Thanks for the lucid answer Joe, and for the even better answer in your behalf from Whitney! Nice to have advocates.
posted on 07.28.2005 5:06 PM37
Having been raised in the Episcopal Church, I find this discussion to be a fascinating (because greatly exaggerated) retread of a familiar squabble with Lutherans, or the occasional ornery Presbyterian. The perennial argument went something like this (here stripped of its evasive politeness and embellished for effect):
Lutheran: "Don't you ever worry that your church is a tad preoccupied with the trappings of worship to the detriment of the spiritual message?"
Episcopalian: "No. What's so wrong with a few stained-glass windows, some colorful vestments and a bit of incense on Easter? Even Jesus appreciated a little splurging every now and then (John 12)."
Lutheran: Don't allude to scripture in order to countenance your popish indulgence in finery. I'm sorry, is the word of God not interesting enough for you? Shall we gussy things up a bit? How about a reclining pew and some popcorn to snack on?
Episcopalian: Humorless teuton. God's message can get through just fine without one being bored stiff by the presentation. If God wanted worship to be a dull slog where we spend five hours vainly trying to concentrate He would replace church with a weekly screening of Tarkovsky films.
Lutheran: Smells-and-bells crypto-Catholic!
Episcopalian: Sour-faced, puritanical crank!
I assume you get my point. Having heard this argument in many forms over the years, I find it surreal to read its bizarre evangelical reimagining. In the hilariously earnest defenses of the "Left Behind" series as a legitimate means of winning souls, I think I finally understand the Lutheran perspective on incense.
p.s. I think many here, Joe included, may be dramatically overestimating the appeal of "Left Behind" to non-Christians. "Hmmm, the new Murakami novel, or 'Tribulation Warriors'? Decisions, decisions..."
posted on 07.28.2005 5:12 PM38
Nice post, Joe! It drew me out from my lurking. ;)
How do you propose doing this [evangelization] on a mass scale? ... But, how about getting the attention of the masses?
I wonder if we are supposed to? As much as we are en mass the body of Christ, our membership in the body is based on our individual response to and relationship with God. We are definitely supposed to evangalize and disciplize on a personal level, but are we on an impersonal level? I wonder.
Jesus certainly modeled the personal level with His own disciples and taught them the same. He also taught crowds, but did not appear to expect them to understand or convert. However, that made them aware of Him, and at least a few came to develope a more personal interaction with Him. And many people converted when given the opportunity after He left. But still, it seems to me everything the Bible teaches and most of what it models about talking to nonbelievers is at a very personal and intimite level, not at an impersonal large group level.
So that makes me wonder how much the modern evangelical thought is based on the concepts resulting from our industrialization, production effeciency methods, and mass impersonal cooersion of a p. They are wonderful things for managing a nation or a product, but a religion? :) On the other hand, you could also draw parallels to the "only game in town" model of the medieval Catholic /Orthodox Church; why work with individuals when we can treat them as a 'nation'?
posted on 07.28.2005 5:33 PM39
Wow! I dont know where to start with this. First Joe says effectively that we should not approach anyone that we are not completely sure is not saved about Jesus at any time in any way.
Then says, "We evangelicals don’t need tools of “evangelism.” We don’t need fads and fixtures. We don’t need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style."
Isn't that what witnessing is? Preaching the gospel? How can you be a witness and not testify? That would be one worthless witness.
It never ceases to amaze me how many reasons people will find not to preach the gospel.
If you really believed in the Gospel, then why would he have a problem with knocking on someone's door and leading them in a prayer of salvation (rom 10.9)? Or writing a cartoon about the gospel? Or telling what happens if they reject the gospel?
Every time I hear someone pray, "Just let them come up to us and say, 'There is something different about you'" I want to gag. Guess what, it almost never happens. And I don't think anybody ever got saved because someone smiled after getting cut off. They get saved when someone cares enough about a dieing world to lay down their own agendas preach to the lost.
It is summed up best in Acts 1.8, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
Most people are scared to witness because they have not received the power of the Holy Spirit. Not only do they not understand the motivation of those who have, they even go so far as to cast stones and dare to say they do not need it. All this while wondering why their churchs are becoming less and less effective.
If you tap into the heart of Jesus I bet you would find that He is pretty excited about some of these things. And you will be supprised how many "elect" there are if you go door to door.
posted on 07.28.2005 5:43 PM40
Joe:
Is it my imagination, or are you whacking a good majority of Evangelicalism over the head with your list? I would have thought all but Tribulationism and Chick Tracks were a common feature of ALL (or nearly all) Evangelicalism!
My experience as an Evangelical was 8 years in the Assemblies of God, and about a year or so in the Evangelical Free Church.
I was looking for two (or are they one category?) you left out: the Prosperity "Gospel" and the "Word of Faith" movement. As bad as Chick stuff is, these are even worse (I say that as a Catholic, Chick's target-number one).
posted on 07.28.2005 5:44 PM41
Carl First Joe says effectively that we should not approach anyone that we are not completely sure is not saved about Jesus at any time in any way.
Um, I admit I meant something like that. First, I would add the caveat that we are probably never sure of anyone’s salvation. That is knowledge that we have to take on the testimony of the person. Second, my point is that it is rather silly to pretend that you really care about the person’s salvation when you don’t even bother to find out if they are already a Christian.
If the author really believed in the Gospel, then why would he have a problem with knocking on someone's door and leading them in a prayer of salvation (rom 10.9)? Or writing a cartoon about the gospel? Or telling what happens if they reject the gospel?
As I said repeatedly, there in nothing wrong with sharing the Gospel. But the idea that we are to use evangelism techniques to win “converts” is simply not Biblical. Christ told us to go and make disciples. He didn’t tell us to got con people into repeating a scripted prayer.
Every time I hear someone pray, "Just let them come up to us and say, 'There is something different about you'" I want to gag.
You must have a hard time reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John then. ; )
Septimus Is it my imagination, or are you whacking a good majority of Evangelicalism over the head with your list?
I figure if you aim for a big enough target you have a better chance of hitting something. ; )
I was looking for two (or are they one category?) you left out: the Prosperity "Gospel" and the "Word of Faith" movement.
I intentionally left off the -isms and movements. I'll save those for another day. Also, I've been guilty, at one time or another, of supporting all seven items on my list. So I was pointing the finger at myself with this one.
42
This is a hard subject. I, for instance, first came to salvation at an altar call when I was very young. The call came at a church lock-in for school children and I made the decision because, among other young people, I felt I could. I didn't have the same young fear that I would have walking down the aisle on Sunday morning amongst adults. Did I understand the call of salvation and the demand of the discipleship of Christ? Sometimes I think I understood them then better than I understand them now.
Emmaus makes a few interesting points, and I hate to pile on, but I disagree. One of the reasons I am a Protestant is the openness of Protestantism to criticism. There is no one doctrine, as in Catholicism or Orthodox religion, and each Christian is free to challenge the conventional wisdom of the Church or of his brothers in Christ as he so chooses. In many ways these intra-Christian wars are precisely what we read in Paul's letters and in the history of the reformation. Sometimes there need be a correction in righteousness.
Incidentally, Joe, you are wrong about testimony. There is nothing stronger or more essential to the doctrine of Christianity. Look at Paul on the road to Damascus. Look at the refrains of a former slave driver in Amazing Grace. Without personal testimony, the story of Christ becomes a dead, historical account. The continued revelation of Christ in our lives is oxygen to the faith. For a good reading on the necessity of narrative to ideology try Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. :) How do you like the certainty of that last paragraph?
posted on 07.28.2005 6:15 PM43
I guess I've not been getting out enough. What are chick tracts?
posted on 07.28.2005 6:56 PM44
Dean - Chick tracts are the footprints left by the chickens in the barnyard. I think Joe grew up on a farm.
posted on 07.28.2005 7:56 PM45
Joe, for all the shlock you accurately point out, it should be noted that the Assemblies of God and Southern Baptists, two denoms heavily into several of your seven, are also, by a long shot, the most mission-oriented denoms in the world. Forget altar calls for a moment; are we to negate their astounding productivity in relief and compassion ministries?
The point: Their (our) misplaced, misfed fire is still a fire. Maybe they need a fireplace to properly contain it, but is a cold, unlit PCA or Lutheran house full of drafty dead fireplaces preferable?
Given the comparably miniscule mission efforts of denoms with better theology, I'll take the deadly trappings of some evangelicals over the plainly dead trappings of the smarter ones.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:03 PM46
Interesting read.
Following…some exciting anecdotal support without much in the way of transitions
Most of the ideas Joe mentions are particularly resonant living in a culture other than the U.S. where the word evangelical is not even a thought and, more to the point, a “Christian” or the word’s direct translation is someone to view with suspicion. In Latin America many of these techniques have been used and are still being used to spread the message of the gospel, but the overwhelming masses of people are turned away by this type of approach. While some are “reached” most shy away from anything that looks like a protestant or as they put it cristian church or person. With most of these people it is necessary to pursue a relationship of friendship based in love without projecting or harboring an agenda for their lives. Once a relationship of mutual friendship exists doors begin to open for opportunities to read the Bible together.
I know many people who have become disciples here, but very few who are able to say when they became a Christian. This likely has something to do with the fact that nearly everyone grows up believing that their soul was saved when they were baptized as an infant and it can also be attributed to the fact that it doesn’t matter. I have never had a person pray ‘the’ prayer in my presence, but I have been witness to a few people confessing with their lips a new, well-founded faith in Christ.
The people automatically retreat when they sense that you are trying to get them to bag their religion. I see the temptation to come on strong with arguments, let those who can’t accept them take off and the others hang around, because sitting in a Bible discussion and listening to people inject what the Bible says with wholly unfounded and sometimes ridiculous interpretations is, well, frustrating. However, I have never had peace to do this, because I don’t want to change the minds of people about their religion. I want to do my part to create disciples and I want to leave peoples’ lives intact. So, I never want to draw people away from being Catholic, I want to serve them and watch them become Catholic disciples of Christ and then I want to watch these kings and princes have more impact within their culture than I ever could.
An underlying issue of what Joe is saying is the tendency for us (especially Americans) to seek quantifiable returns for our spiritual labor and organization. We want to know how many people we have “saved”. We want to be able to reflect exponential growth in our congregations. Quality often gets lost in the shuffle. If we smatter a thousand people with pamphlets surely something will stick right. Surely. For how long? Joe is right to point out that Christ called us at the end of Matthew to make disciples not believers. In many areas of Mexico it is not that hard to go knocking on doors with pamphlets and have some people pray the prayer that comes at the end. Then what happens? How many times would someone pray that prayer just to be polite? The pamphlet doesn’t say anything overtly against Catholicism, so many people will read it and say it out loud and generally be very courteous and do what you ask without really understanding anything new about the Gospel.
All of that said, I have to take issue with Joe’s comments on witnessing and testimony. The word witness should be defined; otherwise all interpretations seem to be lumped in with the activity Joe is disparaging. I tend to agree with the spirit of what Joe is saying, especially that “to witness” is a tough thing to nail down, but “to be a witness” is easy to understand. And once we are witnesses then we will eventually need to bear witness to what we have seen or experienced. Bearing witness in terms of the Gospel basically amounts to the exposition to others of the message of the Gospel, and to my mind the effect the message has had in our lives and others, or to put it in one word, testify.
There is sufficient support in Acts and the letters of Paul, not to mention the gospels, for personal testimony. Most of Paul’s speeches in Acts were personal testimonies of his experience with Christ. Paul relates his testimony in various ways, always pointing to Christ. So, testimony is good and useful as long as it points to Christ and not to ourselves. As for those “dynamic” testimonies that lead people to feel that their ho-hum testimony is not good enough, well, they might be useful to challenge the misconception that some of us are too bad to live for Christ, something that has been common in my own interactions with people. The thought that a ho-hum testimony could exist seems to come from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a sinner or a twisted reasoning used to justify giving ourselves over to sin.
Once again, interesting discussion.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:23 PM47
The above experience comes from living in Latin cultures which are on the whole warm and not hostile, if a little wary, to the Bible. I can only imagine what it would be like in a Muslim culture.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:27 PM48
I feel like this ultimately comes down to under-estimating the power of the gospel.
When using biblical truth to introduce God to others, I think Christ sets the bar with His ministry.
Q: Why do you think we have to spend time learning about cultural norms of "Bible times" in order to get the message the Bible is sending?
A: Because Jesus spoke in terms of things His audience would understand.
We don't keep wineskins around nowadays anymore than computer networking would have made sense to the Corinthians. And would computer networking make sense to absolutely every single solitary individual on the earth today? Yes? Really? Even your grandmother? NO! That's why there is NO FORMULA, NO STANDARD METHOD of sharing the gospel apart from the very story of God and His Son sent to earth. Everything else is just a tool to get the message across.
"A TOOL?!" you say. "Unimaginable. Blasphemy. The gospel stands alone. Don't add to it, don't take away from it. Tool! Hmph."
Tell me, friend, where in any of the 4 accounts of Christ's life did He share the gospel? What one passage can you point to where He finally just addressed the crowd one day with The Gospel? Because if you could show me that, then we'd end this discussion straightaway. There'd be no question that every kitsch-y, trendy, fad-ish reinvention/re-telling of the gospel is useless and dumb. We'd point every non-believer to that perfect gospel passage and be done with it. Hooray, Christianity for all--no brainer!
Of course, I'm being facetious here to make a point. And that is, Christ used parables. Stories that met people where they were--inside their life experiences. And there were lots of parables. And the parables were truly terrific--they even speak to us today they're so rich with meaning. Imagine that! The incredible, beautiful, unreasonable, and mysterious masterpiece that is the gospel of Christ was told by the Savior of the world through short stories. SHORT STORIES!
But the key is the stories had MEANING! They were injected with and just purely saturated by the love that Jesus had for people. He poured it into those stories to get them to understand what God wanted them to know. And what God wants the people of earth to know is that He loves them. God wants everyone to know that deeply and personally.
I started off by saying that this is all about under-estimating the power of the gospel. So I won't conclude until I explain that statement.
If you recognize the parables as containing the gospel message being given to all who would hear, then you must understand that the gospel--in all its fullness--is greater than any one of those parables that contains it.
Don't you see? Don't you understand? The Word, Jesus Christ, or the gospel (all synonyms) is GREATER than ANY vessel that contains it. It's a metaphor for the fact that Christ became a man on earth. Christ HUMBLED Himself to become human. Likewise, the gospel HUMBLES itself in whatever form used: a WWJD bracelet, a "Left Behind" novel, a tract, a Rick Warren bestseller--ANY of it, ALL of it--can contain the gospel or even just a piece of it. Some shred of God-given truth that lets somebody see some speck of the light of the glory of God is all it takes for that person to start toward faith and belief in the Savior of the world.
We have got to stop believing that anything--ANYTHING--can lessen the power of the gospel. The gospel can transcend any man-made tool. But to GROW in faith, well, that's a different story. See: the parable of the sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3-8, 18-23; Mark 4:3-8, 14-20; Luke 8:5-8, 11-15)
Basically, Christ explains through this vignette that some tools of gospel-sharing are better than others. In other words, some seed is thrown better places than others. For instance, some seed is put in with thorns (like deceitfulness and wealth) that choke out the growth of truth. If you want to put 21st century phrasing to it, then you might say: "Some seeds of truth end up thrown into a capitalist, consumer-ist merchandising cycle that grinds the seeds up into dust."
But that leans more toward finger-pointing and blaming than I'm comfortable with doing. So let me end by saying that we should all inspect the soil we are casting our seeds on. We should all trust God to direct us so that the seeds we sow will be aimed at soil that's good for growth.
posted on 07.28.2005 8:28 PM50
For some reason, Joe's site doesn't like my trackbacks. Or my blogging software doesn't like Joe's setup. Or something.
Anyway, kudos to Joe for another relevant and thought-provoking post. My thoughts here:
http://shortattnspan.knowinpart.org/?p=366
posted on 07.28.2005 9:32 PM51
I have one a simple comment to add.
Well, it isn't mine, actually.
It's the apostle Paul's.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able~ 1 Cor 3:1-2
For spiritually mature Christians, solid food is preferable, or even necessary. For infant Christians, or those who remain infants when they SHOULD be mature - sometimes milk is what they need.
They SHOULD be weaned - yes. However, when milk is what is required, or when solid food is just not digestible - that's what you have to give them. C.S. Lewis had a gift - a significant gift - for "translating" the truths of the Gospel into a form that the lowliest infant could understand.
So did Francis Schaeffer. This is why they are two of the 20th Century's giants as "popular" theologians, and apologists. When we look at books like the Left Behind series, I would posit that we must understand who they are written for, and why.
Now, for my own comments.
I, personally, did not find them THAT bad. Tastes, if you remember your Lewis, are not universal. I was just recently reading an essay of his that cautions Christians against condemning Christian literature when what is wrong, in your opinion, is a matter of taste - not of actual heresy, or doctrine. Or if it is "non-essential" doctrine that is the sticking point with you.
Eschatology is NOT soteriologically significant. Thus, it is not essential.
Personally, I found the narratives concerning the martyrdom of various characters, and the testimonies shared by each and every character, to be absolutely riveting. There is one which reduces me to tears, every time - and I KNOW they are fictional characters. The writing, in my opinion, is NOT that bad. It's certainly superior to the majority of the "popular" secular fiction you pick up off the shelves. I read somewhere on the order of 20 books a week, at an average of 400 pages per book.
The Left Behind series is NOT third-rate popular fiction, by the criterion I'd use on it. Is it classical fiction? No. Is it supposed to be? No! It's popular fiction, written to a level that would interest Christians, and non-Christians alike. It has, and I can tell you, offhand, 15 people I know that have gone to church, or returned to church, as a result of reading those books. Half of them are now saved, and attending church regularly.
I don't find them technically inferior, or doctrinally inferior, myself. They are simply written in the style of a modern thriller. Doctrine, the Gospel, "personal" testimonies and the affirmarion of the faith are jam-packed into every single book. I would estimate a sixth, on average, of every book is related to communicating Christian truths in a very practical, very personal manner.
I can't bring myself to knock them, and can quite justify defending them. They have worth. Not the worth of a Lewis, or a Schaeffer - but worth all the same. I would like to persist in a reminder that personal tastes should be kept *severely* distinct from a judgement of objective value.
Know what I mean?
posted on 07.29.2005 1:42 AM52
Good post.
For at least some people/groups it's "Wesleyan," not "Weslyan."
posted on 07.29.2005 4:26 AM53
I think you were right the first time by including #5 on the list. Unfortunately they come out as a screed against people who don't think like you do.
For example this link was posted on a message board discussing the catholic faith.
http://www.pro-gospel.org/main/Testimonies/testimonies-023.php
Somehow I doubt many catholics are swayed by this testimony that misrepresents what catholics believe about prayer.
posted on 07.29.2005 7:34 AM54
Very well written and very thought provoking piece. Thanks for your work and research. We decided to throw up a post and some comments.
http://www.team-swap.com/wordpress/2005/07/29/fad-faith/
posted on 07.29.2005 8:16 AM55
Comment on #2:
I agree that pressure filled, emotional altar calls do not make disciples.
However, your hard calvinism justification just doesn't hold water. Using that same arguement all speech concerning evangalism is usurping the work of the Holy Spirit. God will call those He will call and none that He calls can resist. Those whom He does not call cannot choose God and are eternally doomed. This is nonsense that makes God out to be a capricious, evil monster. 5 pointers need to look at the whole of Scripture, not just their proof texts.
posted on 07.29.2005 8:28 AM56
As I said repeatedly, there in nothing wrong with sharing the Gospel. But the idea that we are to use evangelism techniques to win “converts” is simply not Biblical. Christ told us to go and make disciples. He didn’t tell us to got con people into repeating a scripted prayer.
The last sentence is certainly true, but doesn't have much to do with whether we should go door to door witnessing.
Luke 14:23: "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."
Acts 5:42: "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ."
Mark 16:15: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
Prov. 11:30: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."
posted on 07.29.2005 9:44 AM57
Thanks for the thought-provoking post. I too, am drawn out of lurking to respond.
While these tools/techniques are theoretically of some value to believers, my experience has been that tools like this (testimonies being, IMO, the one exception) are actually used by church members as crutches and substitutes for doing the sort of disciple-making faith-sharing described in the gospels.
Moreover, the attitude toward Christ and the gospel that they seem to engender in traditional types (aka bible belt-raised, rule-following types like myself)is one of inoculation towards the truth of the gospel--familiarity without heart transformation.
With post-modern types, the attitude they engender is one closer to contempt.
So if they're an obstacle to believers' personal obedience to the great commission, AND to non-believers'--both traditional and post-modern-- understanding of and attraction to the gospel, I fail to see their usefulness.
posted on 07.29.2005 10:15 AM58
It is interesting that I get to defend Warren (a little) twice in the same day.
Our church is not huge (1200 attending) but its large - and therefore life groups (home Bible studies, etc) are essential if people are going to be part of the Body on any meaningful level. The church did the "40 Days of Purpose" and the insistance in Warrens stuff that home Bible studies be part of the process led us to find and equip enough leaders to put 1000 people in weekly home studies. Up to that point, we had "encouraged" home groups - now we nearly require people to join one. That is the one part of the 40 days that has truly stuck.
As an expository church with a great set of pastors and elders, it is difficult for bad theology to stick. The 40 Days was not instituted for the purpose of theology however. It was instituted to get the church moving; to light a fire; to see God do a "new work" in our church. It helped do that for some large number of people.
Since you withdrew 2,5, and 6 - I can leave your list alone. One note though: the reason why the more tortured testimonies are more "popular" is that a good chunk of adults coming to Christ do so in desperation (as I did); and often believing their sin is so great that God couldn't possibly forgive them. So those "worse sinners" saved gives them hope.
In an expository church, asking for decisions for Christ often flows naturally out of the text and can hardly be avoided. There is a "decision point" where people's pride breaks and they turn to God. Some remember the day (April 9, 1995) and some do not - but that is the point where (after you decide to "follow Him") you can become a disciple.
posted on 07.29.2005 10:38 AM59
To all those who thought parables were Jesus's way of being "down home" or "into people's lives" with "simple truths" and short stories:
Didn't He explain it this way:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.Kind of the reason we all still argue over scripture. posted on 07.29.2005 11:02 AM
60
Joe --
You make quite a bit of good hay here, but I'm wondering if #5 and #6 aren't a little overstated. I'll grant you the paradigm for witnessing and testimonies that are the common fare are not good.
However, I'm not sure how you can present the Gospel to anyone unless you present it in less abstract terms than, "turn with me to Acts 2 ..." If the question "Have you accepted Jesus ...?" sets off the pomo alert system, opening the Bible without any preface also does the same thing. The personal testimony of the believer -- that is, his demonstration that God is still working in this world, as He did through all the great cloud of witnesses -- is the stepping stone of the unbeliever.
Yes: the Bible is the categorical wellspring for the Gospel. But we are the buckets because God calls us to be the buckets.
posted on 07.29.2005 11:46 AM61
I'll add some comments about this on my blog, shortly.
There's a lot of replies here :) Hard to weed through them all but here's one I noticed...
"Granted, Calvinism isn't a fad. Nevertheless it is harmful when people are more concerned about the thoughts of Calvin as opposed to Jesus." by Tim
The problem is that there are people out there who follow Calvinism as if it's a religion and missrepresent the entirity of what John Calvin really was communicating.
John Calvin wasn't communicating anything new, and it was a fad at all, it was something that Jesus taught throughout all his ministry. Infact! John Calvin didn't even come up with the original 5 points! It was people later who had learned from Calvin's teachings and stood on the same scripture that Calvin taught, and were responding to 5 points that arminians came up with to rebuttle the believe of soveriegn election.
When I talk to people about the sovereignty of God, I don't even mention Calvin, I start by talking about concepts of election and the verses that support that concept (Like John Piper does). I think John Calvin was a great scollar and there's a lot to be learned, but deffinetly NOT someone to be followed like a cult leader.
Now I do have a response to Joe Carter:
Don't forget that everyone who had followed Christ or were "attracted" to him, ended up turning against him or disappearing in the end (except for three which were in his presence at his death). My only problem with what you are saying is it's easy to miss-construe this and lean too far on the "relationship" side of things and neglect the gospel, and say "well this is how Jesus did it, through relationships". Well yes he did (which is just one means of grace and discipleship), but they all turned on him (or away from him) at some point and he didn't resist from preaching the gospel in the presence of everyone either.
62
After a bit of reflection, it seems to me that the problem with these tools/techniques is not that they in of themselves exist. The problem is that in of themselves it is not enough.
Joe, I remember a few months ago when you mocked the Jesus/thumbs up/friend/buddy dashboard fixture.
The thing is, I have friend that has one. And I liked it. I also have a daughter who at age 6 made of painting of her and Jesus surfing together (not sure how that happened, we live in Minnesota).
It finally occured to me that it IS ok to consider Jesus a friend. It IS NOT ok to just consider him a friend. The wonderful painting my daughter made is treasured in my mind. But only if her faith develops further. If it stayed one-dimensional, I would have reason to grieve. (Although one dimension is better than none).
Thank you for your post. But try not to mock or think less of people that like these tools/techniques. It may close some people from thinking further and trying to understand your concerns. Much like the "do you know Jesus as" concern that you posted.
posted on 07.29.2005 12:37 PM63
But then again it's all too easy to lean too far on the "cram it down their throat" side too.
Gah!
posted on 07.29.2005 12:49 PM64
Razorkiss: The Left Behind series is NOT third-rate popular fiction, by the criterion I'd use on it. Is it classical fiction? No. Is it supposed to be? No! It's popular fiction, written to a level that would interest Christians, and non-Christians alike. It has, and I can tell you, offhand, 15 people I know that have gone to church, or returned to church, as a result of reading those books. Half of them are now saved, and attending church regularly.
I don't find them technically inferior, or doctrinally inferior, myself. They are simply written in the style of a modern thriller. Doctrine, the Gospel, "personal" testimonies and the affirmarion of the faith are jam-packed into every single book. I would estimate a sixth, on average, of every book is related to communicating Christian truths in a very practical, very personal manner.
I can't bring myself to knock them, and can quite justify defending them. They have worth. Not the worth of a Lewis, or a Schaeffer - but worth all the same. I would like to persist in a reminder that personal tastes should be kept *severely* distinct from a judgement of objective value.
I think in the future, I'll just let Razorkiss express what I mean.. because, darn it, this is what I was trying to say! Eloquence is definitely not a strength I possess.
Thanks for saying what I could not, in a way that I could not, RK.
65
ColinM or anyone else still around who can answer:
What is the alternative definition for Emergent Church Movement to which you were first referring to? Not the way Emmaus was defining it and clarified, but your initial meaning?
I think many people use your meaning (whatever that is) and I don't know what it is.
I've searched the web for definitions and haven't found a good understanding.
Anyone? What does ECM mean to you?
posted on 07.29.2005 1:14 PM66
Frank Martens,
A good example of where Calvinists lose me is Limited Atonement. I admit I haven't read the most scholarly works on the 5 points, my experience is more from having heard a Piper sermon or in discussions with people. But I have never heard someone give a Biblical reason for limited atonement. They just base it on 2 or more of the earlier 4 points. When you bring up Scriptures that speak against L.A. or some other point, those Scriptures don't seem to weigh as heavily as their earlier points of Calvin.
Just my experience, I'm no expert on Calvinism. If you have a favorite link to a 5 point explanation where each point is based on Scripture I'd love to take a look.
posted on 07.29.2005 1:36 PM67
Good question, Elwood. That totally took me by surprise, too, since I've only heard it used in the way I used it.
posted on 07.29.2005 1:40 PM68
After reading jchfleetguy's testimony on his blog, it got me to thinking more about something that I've eluded to in earlier posts, and that he brough up in his witness. One major problem we seem to have as a church (and, in fact, a very real problem that I'm dealing with right now) is discipleship. As has been stated by others here, sometimes getting people in the door, and in the pews, is merely a small problem compared to the one of discipling someone.
I've been a born-again Christian for just a couple of years now, and I struggle all the time with trying to "deepen" (bad word choice, I know) my faith - to become more spiritually mature. However, there aren't folks at my church jumping out of their pews on Sunday morning to come alongside me and help me in my walk... that seems, to me at least, to be part of the "crux" of the problem. There may be many, many people who are on the verge of coming to Christ, or, even those that do, and then the "ball" gets dropped, and they drift away more cynical then they were before.
posted on 07.29.2005 1:48 PM69
Elwood states "A good example of where Calvinists lose me is Limited Atonement. I admit I haven't read the most scholarly works on the 5 points, my experience is more from having heard a Piper sermon or in discussions with people. But I have never heard someone give a Biblical reason for limited atonement. They just base it on 2 or more of the earlier 4 points. When you bring up Scriptures that speak against L.A. or some other point, those Scriptures don't seem to weigh as heavily as their earlier points of Calvin."
I think L.A. needs to be thought of like this, take the election part out and just think of it from the view point of someone choosing Christ. Even an arminianist would agree with this point:
Not everyone is entering the kingdom of heaven, so therefore it's limited, there's a limited number of people entering the kingdom of heaven. If it wasn't limited then everyone would be entering the kingdom of heaven, however we know that ONLY those who believe on Christ will enter. Therefore Atonement is limited only to those who believe.
posted on 07.29.2005 3:10 PM70
Let me add...
Atonement is limited ONLY to those who believe, but available to all, yet still limited because only a few will believe.
posted on 07.29.2005 3:13 PM71
Sorry I should have thought more before I posted...
I think the part that the 5 points loose people or make people upset is Unconditional Election.
I've heard people say "yea but we do the choosing, I don't see how God chooses anyone because man does choosing too", or "That's unloving of God to choose some but not others".
My only response is Romans 9, where paul says that we are NOT to question God's sovereignty, that would put man at the center. I like the way John Piper puts it, "the cheif end of God is to Glorify God", or God exists to glorify himself, and he'll use whatever means necessary to do that, and part of that is showing love and mercy to mankind.
I know there's a paradox to what scripture says, yes it says man chooses to be saved, yet at the same time it says that God has chosen those to be saved. It's a paradox, yet you can't deny one or the other.
posted on 07.29.2005 3:29 PM72
Bill Gothard was a fad? He has been around for 25 to 30 years. That's as long as, say, Wendy's hamburgers. I went to two Gothard seminars in my life. The first one had a profound effect on me, the second one, not so much. I've heard plenty of people badmouth Gothard. I know all about how rigid and legalistic he is. He made me think differently about obedience and about the truth of the scripture. C.S. Lewis had a profound effect on me. So did Francis Schaeffer. All in different ways.
There may be a major point to the post, Joe, but I really fail to see what it is. People come and go, but the Lord stays the same? I think it says that somewhere in the Bible. You're surprised or offended that many things in the evangelical world don't last? We live in the material world; we are going to be affected by it, at least a little. Many folks have been touched, lives changed, maybe even new evangelists have been "born" because of these "fads."
Are some of them offensive? Yeah, I guess so. But, you know what? I don't like the fact that, you, being a professor or scholar or both, wear those leather patches on your tweed sport coat, smell like coffee and pipe smoke (or patchouli oil), sometimes forget to remove the straps that keep your pants from getting in the bike chain, and almost always sing a little too loud and and a little too off key. Maybe I should add you to the list of deadly trappings.
posted on 07.29.2005 4:06 PM73
Frank,
In other words, L.A. just means that not everyone is redeemed? Atoned = redeemed? That I can agree with.
What I don't see in Scripture is any limitation of His sacrifice. As God, He is infinite. His sacrifice was infinite, not limited. Over and over He is called the Savior of the world, and not just the Savior of the elect. "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. " 1John2:2
Why can't it be that Christ's sacrifice made salvation available to all, but that grace was not applied to all? Either because they didn't accept it or they weren't elected or whatever. Some people present LA as if there ends up being 10 billion people in heaven when it's all said and done, and on average each of those people committed 1 billion sins, then Christ died for 1b X 10b sins and not one single sin more than that. That used up the Limited Atonement. Maybe that's not what it actually means. If not, then I think it's a poorly named point. If it just means Limited Redemption, which means basically that hells exists and there will be people suffering there, then I can accept that.
74
You quoting that verse is exactly my point, you can't deny where scripture states one thing and the other.
Atonement is deffinetly NOT applied to all, otherwise all would be saved (regardless of whether or not they believed). Atonement in the dictionary states (dictionary.com):
1) Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation
2) The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.
You state "Why can't it be that Christ's sacrifice made salvation available to all, but that grace was not applied to all?" - Which is stated well, it's available for all (so that none will be without excuse, and I believe paul talks about this in Romans 8) but NOT APPLIED to all. Only by those who are sovereignly chosen and elected and believe (all three in unison) does it apply.
I think an excellent article put together by John Piper and his staff should be read, you can find it here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
I think they do a better job at explaining than I could.
I hope that helps :)
posted on 07.29.2005 6:52 PM75
Wow!
This post captures a lot of what's bothered me about the Baptist, Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical Christianity I grew up in.
I agree about the Evangelical fads. BIG DEAL. THEY CAN BE IGNORED! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM. Those are a mere manifestation of Zondervan and companies like them just trying to make a buck off us. Might as well rail against Walmart (where you can find discounted Thomas Kincaid pictures). The real problem are the non-fads cited in Evangelicalism. And we must stand like Athanasius and cry "contra mundum" with all of our voice.
Baptists (like me) say Catholics favor faith plus works, but what is the sinner's prayer if it isn't a work? Is it some Harry Potter-style Magic? It all links together and I think it's the sort of thing Paul anathematizes in Galatians. I don't think Jack Chick is the tool of the devil. Given the sales mindset of Evangelicalism, someone else would have dreamed up the very same kind of thing. The devil's tool is the attitudes that created a demand for Jack Chick's work.
posted on 07.29.2005 7:05 PM76
Caught me lurking, too.
Emmaus,
You really hit on something - the problem of pewsitters and disciple-making. To me it goes back to the same reason evangelicals use "tricks and tools": reluctance to get personally involved with others. Most of what Joe listed is one-step removed from that personal, individualized time that Jesus had with seekers. Joe's list (I, too, would except #5, personal witness) is easier, shorter-term, more susceptible to checking off a list, counting, scheduling, planning, and other modernist-type achievement. Getting involved is messier, more uncertain, riskier, time-consuming, and takes more leading by the Holy Spirit. And more love.
Don't give up. Don't give in to cynicism. Pray for a mentor, pray for someone to really see you. There IS a remnant in your church, folks who are not safely immune to the Holy Spirit. Make it known that you are looking for discipleship and fellowship and followship and ask unashamedly for that. Then look for it.
If this is off-track, I apologize. And BTW, what do you bet we all jumped to jcfleetguy's testimony? Testimony = hope.
posted on 07.29.2005 10:56 PM77
Seems as if acts 1.8 says about when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, you shall be my witnesses...
posted on 07.29.2005 11:58 PM78
A left-over fad from the early 1970s that I think needs to go is the idea that "religion" is a dirty word. I believe this comes from a book called "How to be a Christian without being religious." Many evangelicals tell other people that Christianity is not a religion, and that religion is a bad thing (rituals!) It created a credibility problem, sort of like starting a conversation by saying that earth is not a planet.
posted on 07.30.2005 12:05 AM79
It's probably too far down in the thread to bring attention to this, but...
Razorskiss said: "Eschatology is NOT soteriologically significant. Thus, it is not essential."
In all charity, rethink this statement. It's crazy.
Eschatology is the theology of ultimate things, sometimes put as "last" things, but that is a little misleading, because constrains eternal reality by our temporal limits: eschatology, rightly understood, is always "breaking into" this world.
It is premised on there truly being an ultimate reality beyond what we perceive and experience, and that ultimate reality, of course, is the Trinity, and Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate, complete reveletion of the Trinity to the world.
To say that eschatology isn't essential is to say that how Christ completes the salvation of humanity isn't essential! Crazy!
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says:
"On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."
To say eschatology isn't soteriologically significant, and hence not essential, is to delete the the second sentence I just quoted. It leaves humanity in its present state of crucifixion, awaiting the resurrection. To say eschatology isn't soteriologically significant is to say the resurrection of all is not significant to salvation. Nonsense!
As St. Paul said, if there is no resurrection of the dead, we are the most miserable of all men (1 Cor 15).
Now, I think Razorskiss did not mean to say all this; I think (s)he meant merely to put the much-criticized "Left Behind" series at arms-length.
But part of the reason "Left Behind" should be criticized is precisely because you can't separate eschatology from soteriology.
Tim LaHaye's portrait of God and Christ in that series is revealing -- and, I think, horrifying and (unintentionally) blasphemous; a God who plays favorites, a God of limited imagination and resources, a God who elects people for rapture on rather tenuous bases...these are portraits of what kind of Savior he is.
That's about soteriology; and the ultimate light of the eschaton shines through the entire economy of salvation; hence its serious business, far too serious for someone as frivolous and cramped in his thinking as Tim LaHaye. Perhaps the same can be said of us all--which might be why the Scriptures are so sketchy about it: human imagination simply can't comprehend what God has planned; so Christ says, in effect, wait, don't fret, be ready.
posted on 07.30.2005 8:27 AM80
If there is no difference between first-order importance, and second-order importance, in theology, then you are forced ever nearer to saying that noone but those who believe *exactly* as you do are saved. Not "believe in the tenets of the Apostles creed, and have Jesus as Lord" but "hold exactly to EVERY doctrinal precept in my belief system, with no deviation". That is the difference, and that is whese your line of reasoning takes us to.
There are non-essential doctrines to salvation: this is one of them.
The TYPE of Eschatology is not as important - while still important, in a different sense. All of the major eschatologies agree that God will judge the living and the dead, and that Christ is coming again. These are all required tenets of faith. WHEN Jesus is coming, WHEN God will judge us all - these are not. Equating them with the doctrines of salvation is a sticky situation, at best, and dangerous ground to walk down, at worst.
Check your premise, and your definitions.
posted on 07.30.2005 11:18 AM81
Razor:
Your comment actually was, "Eschatology is NOT soteriologically significant. Thus, it is not essential."
Perhaps what you meant to say was, "Which eschatology one holds to is not soteriologically significant...within certain bounds, such as defined by the Nicene Creed..." ("all the major eschatologies agree..." -- what about the minor ones? Your statement did not exclude them; were we to read your mind? Please tell me how)?
Some eschatologies say there is no hell; some say there is no resurrection of the body, though this is more often implied, than expressed; some hold that Christ's second coming is not "literal," which others, including me, would take to be a denial of his real return.
Insofar as some eschatologies are universalist in salvation, and others are highly exclusionary; and to my mind, Dispensationalist eschatology has God being capricious and contradicting himself, but the response seems to be, he's God, he can do what he pleases. I fail to see how, insofar as eschatology is not fundamentally separable from soteriology, it can be described as "not soteriologicaly significant." Soteriology is how we are saved, and what salvation means; eschatology includes the re