"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." Phil 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:
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laments that most of the "stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date" I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is nothing more than a passing trend.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.
The following are ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes.
#1 Making Converts -- I've always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion much less helping make true disciples.
#2 The Sinner's Prayer -- The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner's prayer." I've searched through the entire New Testament and can't find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can't be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it's far, far, too late.
#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. "I'm, 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 -- Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn't enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn't much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; 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 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 evangelists 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 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.
My friend Jared Bridges has pointed out another reason for me, as a Baptist, to despise the term "altar call": We don't believe in transubstantiation and we don’t burn offerings, so we have no need for an "altar."
#7 Witnessing -- Evangelism ain't Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.
If you want to be a more effective "witness for Christ" then start by doing what Christ did and love other people. Start by loving the "unlovable" -- the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not "witnessing." In the context of the Christian life, "witness" should be a noun more often than a verb.
#8 Protestant Prayers -- Last week one of my fellow coworkers, a young Catholic man, was asked to open our meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the "Lord's prayer." Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn't say what how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.
First, I'm not used to hearing prayers that don't contain the word "just" (as in "We just want to thank you Lord…") so it had an odd ring to it. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to's in with some Lord-thank-you-for's and be- with-us-as-we's in a coherent fashion before toppping it all with an Amen. Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous--from the heart, off the top of the head--emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain't original, it ain't prayer, right? Can I get an amen?
But where did this idea come from? We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn't that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like His example? (And if you are wondering what prayer is doing on a list of evangelistic fixtures then we are really in trouble.)
#9 The Church Growth Movement -- Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I'm wrong? Ask the next person you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next 100 people you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples. (If you do find someone who says that then smack 'em upside their head with a Scofield for they're a Purpose-Driven Liar.)
#10 Chick Tracts -- Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact--and yes it is a fact--is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner' Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.
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." By the age of eight 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 worshiped. 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.
(Note: The last time I posted this article, I ended up caving into peer pressure and admitting that maybe this stuff ain't all that bad. Two years later I find that I conceded too much. I've modified my stance a bit and clarified a few points of contention. But I really do believe that these "fixtures" have become detrimental to the making of disciples. Am I wrong? I'm open to hearing counter-claims.)
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3588
1
Great post! I think you should go a little easier on the Chick Tracts though. Your declaration "Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact--and yes it is a fact" could be made for any tool or Christian practice. The "Disciple's Prayer", taught by Jesus and recited by your Roman Catholic coworker, has been used by Satan to encourage people to mindlessly recite the words over and over--the very opposite of what Jesus was teaching in giving this model prayer.
posted on 05.10.2007 4:49 AMDoes that mean we stop reciting the prayer? Absolutely not! Neither should we reject all tracts, or Chick tracts in particular, simply because they have been misused by so many.
Literature distribution is still an effective tool here in Africa for attracting people to hear the Message of Christ's love.
2
Would you please tell me where you found the quote from Packer in #6? I would like to read more!
Thank You.
posted on 05.10.2007 6:29 AM3
This deserves a minimum of 10 "amens".
posted on 05.10.2007 6:55 AM4
Excellent post!
A lot of people in church have felt this way; but not had the guts to say something about it. I guess the next question is: How do you make a disciple? I would imagine it would go beyond Sunday School.
posted on 05.10.2007 6:59 AM5
I don't have a problem with what you've posted here (it being your personal preferences and experiences) and support almost all of your points, but . . . (sorry to find fault with what otherwise is quite good) . . . but there is a theological point that I believe needs sharpening.
You wrote, "But the harsh truth is that your story doesn't much matter."
Well, yes and no: I recognize that you wrote "much matter" but I think the figure of speech (irony?) implies that it doesn't matter at all. Again, yes and no. Man is not the focal point in the Bible's account of history: that honor belongs to God and, specifically, the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. It is all about Him, not about us.
But there are instances where man does seem to matter in the outworking of God's purpose, i.e., to glorify Himself. For example, Jesus did send a leper to the temple to tell the priests what God had done for him, thus lending some biblical support to the notion of testimony. And Paul did say that people were glorifying God because of what He had done in Paul, again inferring a testimony (they had to know abut Paul's conversion to glorify God because of him).
Second, and theologically, we are as important to God as a patient is to a surgeon: without a patient, certain attributes of the surgeon can never be displayed. Similarly, we are a means through which the end - the glory of God - is accomplished. The far greater good is, of course, the glory of God, but He has seen fit to honor and reward us for just being available - and for not crawling off the operating table.
I don't understand that kind of love very well but I know it to be true. Again, we are not the focal point of history - neither is our salvation the greatest good - but we are a signpost along the way and a canvas upon which He displays His attributes. And that does count for something.
At any rate, I do appreciate this wake-up call to get back to what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about. But I thought the theological point was worth clarifying a bit. Thanks for the (re-)post.
posted on 05.10.2007 8:37 AM6
I don't have a problem with what you've posted here (it being your personal preferences and experiences) and support almost all of your points, but . . . (sorry to find fault with what otherwise is quite good) . . . but there is a theological point that I believe needs sharpening.
You wrote, "But the harsh truth is that your story doesn't much matter."
Well, yes and no: I recognize that you wrote "much matter" but I think the figure of speech (irony?) implies that it doesn't matter at all. Again, yes and no. Man is not the focal point in the Bible's account of history: that honor belongs to God and, specifically, the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. It is all about Him, not about us.
But there are instances where man does seem to matter in the outworking of God's purpose, i.e., to glorify Himself. For example, Jesus did send a leper to the temple to tell the priests what God had done for him, thus lending some biblical support to the notion of testimony. And Paul did say that people were glorifying God because of what He had done in Paul, again inferring a testimony (they had to know abut Paul's conversion to glorify God because of him).
Second, and theologically, we are as important to God as a patient is to a surgeon: without a patient, certain attributes of the surgeon can never be displayed. Similarly, we are a means through which the end - the glory of God - is accomplished. The far greater good is, of course, the glory of God, but He has seen fit to honor and reward us for just being available - and for not crawling off the operating table.
I don't understand that kind of love very well but I know it to be true. Again, we are not the focal point of history - neither is our salvation the greatest good - but we are a signpost along the way and a canvas upon which He displays His attributes. And that does count for something.
At any rate, I do appreciate this wake-up call to get back to what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about. But I thought the theological point was worth clarifying a bit. Thanks for the (re-)post.
posted on 05.10.2007 8:38 AM7
Jeez, Joe, you are such a crank. While I must admit to and acquiesce to the logic of your list of ten fads and fixtures, I'm not happy about it. The word austere comes to mind. Yeah, that's it--austere. Like the elders of the church sitting in the front without their families--wearing their hats. Like dark suits on a 90 degree sunday morning. In fact, I think the Amish would say a big Amen to your list. John Calvin would be absolutely ecstatic and dancing in the aisles. Well, perhaps not. We wouldn't know if Calvin was ecstatic.
I have a few minor disagreements, but one major one. I will admit to being uncomfortable with the notion of a testimony for two reasons. First, it just smells of religion, doesn't it? Second, I am sensitive to the fact that many Christians don't have a dramatic conversion story and therefore are almost struck with fear at the thought of having to give a testimony.
However, I don't think testimonies are about the person giving them. They are about God working in someone's life. They are about witnessing for God. They are telling God's story as it worked out in one person's trials. A testimony is the gospel told one more time. Testimonies are an encouragement for saints and sinners alike.
Perhaps your prospective employer only wanted to hear your testimony because he needed encouragement.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:03 AM8
Go Joe!
Re: Chick Tracts. If there is value to the sinner's prayer and tracts in general, then Chick Tracts are certainly a tool of the devil for they way that they coat the Gospel with a black layer of vitriol, hate, and lies.
IMO, the intelligent design movement is another fashionable fad. I take comfort in the idea that in another 10 or 15 years, it will be as forgotten as the backwards-masking rock-is-devil-music fad of my junior high years.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:18 AM9
Hi Liquid,
The quote comes from "Puritan
Evangelism" by J. I. Packer. Here's
the link:
http://tinyurl.com/2xtzfs
You can find the complete treatment
posted on 05.10.2007 9:35 AMof the subject in "Evangelism and
the Sovereignty of God" by Packer.
10
Dr. Mike says: Man is not the focal point in the Bible's account of history: that honor belongs to God and, specifically, the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. It is all about Him, not about us.
If this is so, I need something explained to me. We are told that God so loved the world - and that, I suppose, would mean us - that he sent his son; and again and again in the gospels we are told that the fundamental command, the command which precedes all others, is to love God and the other as the self. But the view you seem to propose is that, at bottom, God sent his son for his glory and not for our redemption. This seems contrary to the law of love. Consider this example: one might have children for a multitude of reasons. Here are two: (i) so that there are others to love, and be loved, and (ii) so that one's children might stand as evidence of one's virtue or one's glory. The first seems the better of the two reasons. Indeed the second seems a base reason to have children. Now, if I understand you, you say that the second of the two best models God's reason for the creation of humanity. As before, that seems to be a base motive for creation; moreover, it seems to runs counter to the law of love.
In sum. Your view seems to be this: we exist so that God might be glorified. My view on the contrary is this: we exist so that we might love and be loved, by both God and the neighbor.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:50 AM11
Wonderful, Joe, simply wonderful1
posted on 05.10.2007 9:55 AM12
Franklin,
God exists not for us, but us for Him. Through our salvation as a result of the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Christ on the Cross, God is glorified. And, yes, this was His primary purpose in my redemption was His glorification. The goal and purpose of my life is to bring Him honor and glory. In loving my neighbors, I show them the love of Christ, hence bringing Him glory. In loving the unlovable, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, etc. I am indeed loving them, but more importantly I am showing them the love of God through service. This, again, brings Him honor and glory.
To say that we exist to love and be loved downgrades the Gospel message to the level of that espoused by Joel Osteen and many others. This type of gospel is therapeutic at best because it makes us feel better about ourselves. God is not interested in us feeling better about ourselves. He desires for me to see myself as a sinner in need of redemption through the grace that He offers. Once I have accepted that gift of salvation/redemption, then all glory belongs to Him and Him alone. So, in short, we do exist for Him, not Him for us.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:05 AM13
FAD no. 11 - Supporting illegal and immoral wars.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:12 AM14
"FAD no. 11 - Supporting illegal and immoral wars."
Where's the eyeroll smiley when you need it?
posted on 05.10.2007 10:20 AM15
Great list Joe. The American church is a totally fad driven church. Go into any Christian bookstore and ask for "The Classics" and you'll be lucky to find anything older than 20 years unless it was written by Lewis.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:20 AM16
My church is diametrically opposed to the the things you mention, I'm no fan of them, and I think you're right on many counts, but I'm a little wary of point 6. The emphasis on preparation has led in our churches to preaching about the right preparation and 'the way the Spirit leads a sinner', and people are hardly ever encouraged to 'simply believe'.
Packer says, '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...' It depends on the circumstances, but the promise and command of the Gospel is that 'he who believes on the Lord shall be saved'. A number of very Reformed writers have said that it is not presumption at all, because the Bible commands us to believe, and it's hardly presumptive to do as you're told to do.
But I agree that 'bullying for decisions' is not the way to go either.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:22 AM17
Tim says: This type of gospel [the type wherein our ultimate purpose is to love and be loved] is therapeutic at best because it makes us feel better about ourselves. God is not interested in us feeling better about ourselves.
I didn't say that this, and what I said does not imply this. Love is not to be equated with anything we might happen to feel at a particular time. It is, rather, a steady determination of the will to act so as to bring about the good not only of the self but of the other as well. Don't bebase love my mistaking it for feeling good.
You say as well that we exist for Him, not Him for us. I did not say He exists for us. Rather I said that He created us so that love might abound. My view is best put in this way: we - both God and humanity - exist for one another, that we might love and enjoy one another. We, both God and man, are for us.
For what it's worth, this seems to me the message of the gospels. We are not told that God so wished to glorify himself that He sent his only begotten son. Rather we are told that God so loved the world that He did this. Jesus, when he tells his disciples what at bottom his message is, tells them not to glorify God but instead to love.
I do not mean to say that there's no place in sound theology for God's glory. Instead I suggest that we rethink just what the glorification of God is. It isn't, as it were, an arrow that points only at God. Rather it points but up and down. Perhaps we should say that glorifying God is glorifying in God, and that this is loving, and being loved by, Him.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:31 AM18
Our Christian culture indeed has a strange take on the testimony. During my high school years it seemed that those who had the privilege to speak publicly were those that came from dark pasts. That is, the best testimonies were those that seemed to carry someone from the lowest of depths to the highest of spirituality. As a Christian teenager I was torn in that I desired to live a life honoring to God, while at the same time realizing that I would never have such a testimony. Why would anyone ever listen to my story? Should I go out and commit some fun sins to pump up my testimony for the future use of God's work?
It wasn't until I was much older that I came to see that the testimony of a whole life lived to honor God is the life that works. That testimony is stronger, but kept much more subtle in our culture.
We send the wrong messages to our youth when we prop up the dramatic testimony to establish the 'coolness' of being a believer.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:18 AM19
Neither should we reject all tracts, or Chick tracts in particular, simply because they have been misused by so many.
Nobody misuses a Chick tract. The entire idea is that you're supposed to just leave them around (or you can hand them out) but they are entirely Jack Chick's message to the reader. I think they are often hysterical and many of them are fascinating for what I guess I could best describe as their pop art quality.
I think the problem Joe has with them is they seem to be based on taking sadistic enjoyment at the idea of God tossing screaming people into hell. The general plot of a tract is as follows:
Average Joe: I'm Joe going about my everyday life. Ohhh no I just got killed!
God: You're a sinner, off to hell with you!
Average Joe: What did I do wrong? No one told me I was supposed to do anything other than what I did!
God: Remember that smelly guy at the train station 25 years ago who tried to hand you that Chic Tract! Well you threw it away! BZZZZZ Wrong answer off to hell with you!
Average Joe: Nooooooo!!!!!
I would worry about someone who took this seriously. He's an interesting artist because he has a mature eye for human nature, characters and how to depict it in comic strip form but his view of religion is as childish as you can get. Essentially you should follow whatever dogma he is pushing because God is a big bully who gets off on tossing people into fire & you should get a kick out of seeing him toss people into fire.
Needless to say most of his characters who play the helpless sinners are cooler, more intersting and all around better human beigns than the saved people in his strips.
I'm not sure if they are really evil as Joe would say. The immature phase is something we all have to go through. When we are little we listen to our parents because "if we don't they will get angry and hurt us" (well nowadays hurt may be just 'time out' but you get the idea). I think religion should and is much more sophisticated than that but so is parental love yet the child first has to understand it from the immature POV before he can move on to more sophisticated ideas. Perhaps some people should begin with the simple idea "Do what God wants or he will hurt you". I could imagine an interesting college class on Christian thought using a Chic tract and something from CS Lewis to demonstrate just how wide a range there is.
What makes this good or bad, though, is where the person takes this. He can take the Chic tract and use it as a first step towards something a bit more mature and civilized and sensible or he can walk down the street reveling in how he is going to enjoy seeing all the people who think he is an annoying jerk get tossed into hell because they are sick of him handing them more Chic tracts.
But if something good comes out of it, it would be because the person made it a good thing. Not because the tract was a good thing. The tract is probably a bad thing because as far as I can see it wallows in its own filth...it isn't trying to begin with a simple idea so people take the first step. I'm sure there's some men who can honestly say they found God in a whorehouse...yet Joe would be wise not to recommend making regular visits to whorehouses as a way to find God.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:22 AM20
TC
It's pretty easy to write a story with lots of drama in it. I'm not surprised that many of the stories presented were of the "dark sinner now good guy" type (I'm not saying these stories were faked...it's just that they are easier to tell and find ).
But there are some powerful examples of stories that reflect just how amazing a seemingly normal life can really be. The one that springs to mind is It's a Wonderful Life. Another movie is Big Fish. Star Trek:TNG had a good episode once where Picard lived a full lifetime up to near death from old age surrounded by children and grandchildren while under a trance by an alien probe...I remember it because how how much better it was from many other episodes (and not because the other episodes were that bad). It takes a good writer to properly depict such a story and many people are skeptical that such stories can be good so their biased towards the "I was a serial killer who didn't go to Church but a little comic strip the homeless man who lives in a van down by the river gave me saved me!" device.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:30 AM21
Hi Joe,
First-time commenter, long-time reader.
Generally, I agree with most of your items (esp. #10); however, I thought the prayer item needed a comment.
I think the idea of our Protestant phobia of canned prayer is based on Jesus telling us not to pray repetitive prayers like the heathen, thinking that by praying prayers over and over, that somehow God hears them better, more, etc.
I think that extends to prepared prayers in that when we prepare them, we are in effect praying them. And when we recite them, we are praying them again. Besides, it seems almost inauthentic to not pray off the top of our head. Unfortunately, the Lord's Prayer has become the most repetitively recited prayer in the history of Man.
One other thing - and I'm often guilty of this myself - when we pray together, we often signal to one another that we're done for now by invoking InJesusNameAmen at the end of our request. While asking God for things in Jesus' Name is biblical, I sometimes think that this particular phrase has almost become punctuation in our prayers.
So, Joe, I just want to thank you for your thought-provoking post InJesusNameAmen.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:33 AM22
Joe,
You can get an "Amen" from me, but it won't count, because I'm Catholic. ;-)
But as a non-evangelical Christian, I have to say that several of these "fixtures" of evangelicalism have the potential to piss off the rest of Christendom. Of course, if they were all true and necessary parts of Christianity, one might be obligated to retain them despite their clear anti-ecumenical function. If that isn't the case, then many of these fixtures actually present stumbling blocks to the unity for which Christ prayed.
I have no right to tell my evangelical brothers and sisters what they should do. I can tell you that some of these fixtures are real turn-offs both to other Christians and to non-Christians. If people are going to hate evangelicalism, don't you at least want them to hate evangelicalism on account of essential Christian doctrines and practices, rather than for the sake of recent and unnecessary "fixtures"?
posted on 05.10.2007 11:53 AM23
Whatever you do, please hang on to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort as your spokesmen. They are a real answer to prayer for atheists everywhere.
posted on 05.10.2007 12:44 PM24
Whatever you do, please hang on to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort as your spokesmen. They are a real answer to prayer for atheists everywhere.
Kirk Cameron I vaguely remember in some 1980's TV show, but Ray Comfort; did he invent Southern Comfort?
posted on 05.10.2007 12:55 PM25
In regards to #6, the altar call can be abused like anything else. But Joe, don't let die hard Calvinism cause you to throw the baby out with the bath water.
For preachers, the message and subsequent alter call is "sowing seeds". Some seed will fall on bad soil, but the seed should still be thrown to all. A number of evangelists have used this method, and it has beard fruit. Billy Graham and Corrie ten Boom come both have/did, and they from Reformed backgrounds.
For believers the altar provides a place for public confession, and a location for the laying of hands for prayer and healing- both of which are scriptural. It's a logical place for communion as well - whether we believe transubstantiation or not.
For unbelievers the altar call provides them a place to make a public confession and commitment to Christ. A place to acknowlege and worship God. This doesn't have to take place at a church or alter, but it certainly can(1 Cor 14:24-25).
posted on 05.10.2007 1:41 PM26
Thanks so much, Kim!
posted on 05.10.2007 3:10 PM27
Joe -
You used the word "forty" in your comments on prayer (point 8). Be careful!!! When tossing around the number '40' in such a haphazard fashion, you are bound to start a Purpose-Driven Something-or-other.
posted on 05.10.2007 4:17 PM28
What's the good news about the rapture?
All the people who believe in it vanish, and we get their stuff.
What's the bad news?
Their stuff is all from K-mart.
posted on 05.10.2007 5:33 PM29
Mixed feelings about this post. I have felt similar misgivings about every item on this list. But Joe's critique is permeated with what has become an increasingly popular trend in some circles toward Christian self-flagellation - a distancing of oneself from what is perceived as an antiquated, unhip evangelical church establishment.
When I look at the list, I see examples of well-meaning Christians trying to reach out to people. Often these approaches are awkward. As was pointed out, sometimes they are theologically suspect. Wrong motives have a way of creeping in. There are more abuses than we can count. But much of this activity represents sincere people trying to reach others.
It's easy to be critical, Joe. But I see very little in the way of constructive criticism here.
posted on 05.10.2007 6:31 PM30
WHAT YOUR RAPTURE IQ ?
If you think you are an expert, rapturewise, compare your mental computer with the following Google items: "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "Famous Rapture Watchers," and "The Rapture Index (Mad Theology)." Well, how do you stack up? Marge
posted on 05.10.2007 6:39 PM31
Another comment - different topic.
If I were part of a Christian organization and was hiring, I would want to hear a "testimony" too.
It's not that "the fact that you're a Christian" is not good enough. It's that he doesn't know that you truly are a Christian unless he hears your testimony - by which I mean a description of how you understand the faith and how you came to own it (or how it came to own you). It can be dramatic or not, it could have happened over a period of time or climaxed at a single instant of enlightenment, whatever. But it's important, and yes, it's an opportunity to give glory to God.
I don't understand why you are whining about it.
posted on 05.10.2007 6:40 PM32
Don't get me wrong, prayer is wonderful and if you doing it, please add a few for me :-).
Catholics get a bad rap on repeating prayers. If something is theologically sound and it helps you to focus on God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), why is that a bad thing?
Are hymns prayers? Yes they are. So why do many congregations sing the same songs over and over, but you never hear them say the Lord's Prayer (Our Father if you're Catholic). Jesus taught it us, why not say it while you are trying to live it? How many times do people listen to their favorite "praise and worship" song over and over, but say we should not be repetitious in our prayers?
I know many people that prefer the "free form" style of prayer. But they repeat the same thing over and over. One day they say a prayer and two days later they say almost the same thing. In many of these settings, "Jesus" or "Lord" temporarily replaces "ahs" and "umms" in their speech.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:17 PM33
Joe:
I'm really curious what your prayers would be like, assuming that they're not the Lord's Prayer ad infinitum. Or is that the wrong assumption? Would you simply put your words into the template of the Lord's Prayer? I understand your misgivings about the way we pray. I recall you or someone you linked to, writing about the "just" in our prayers as well as the little clicking sound we make with our tongue. It was a funny post about a very curious phenomenon. I had assumed it only happened north of the Mason-Dixon Line;)
You can't be suggesting that spontaneous prayers are wrong. I am confused by what a prayer meeting at the church of Joe would sound like.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:28 PM34
It's also apparent that I need to make a further clarification of an earlier explanation for JohnW:
Shut up
posted on 05.10.2007 9:35 PM35
Paul:
I couldn't agree with you more--on repetition in prayer as well as Catholics getting a bad rap.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:40 PM36
Amen on the issues of salvation prayer and "just" prayer. I am so glad that I am not alone in noticing that. The definition of just leads you to believe that their prayer should end right there, but they just keep asking for more. My struggle is how to pray as Jesus taught, make it personal, and come in reverance without it eventually becoming routine.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:06 PM37
JohnW
If you really want to impress us all, start working your opposition to the war into the Yak Shaving Razor posts. I mean, really, right now you're just hitting the slow easy ones.
mmjd
posted on 05.11.2007 12:02 AM38
?
posted on 05.11.2007 1:53 AM39
I had a wonderful woman in a Bible study who was a real prayer warrior but punctuated every sentence with "O Lord,". "We lift up our sister Mary, O Lord. You know how she loves you, O Lord. Help her now with her illness, O Lord." It got so I couldn't help wondering if she thought God was Irish.
posted on 05.11.2007 7:50 AM40
What the hell is wrong with people that we're making fun of people's wording in prayer?!
People can do all sorts of things because of pride, arrogance and a desire to be thought of as "spiritual" - uber-long prayers, theatrical prayers, etc.
But making fun of people for using turns of phrase - "just", "O Lord", or "with-us-as-we". What sort of jerk makes fun of other Christians who don't pray in the 'proper' way even though they are sincere and praying in faith and Godliness?
How about I start making fun of Joe because he obviously can't count - "Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson (Lords Prayer) in less than forty words"? Check again.
As ridiculous as my making fun of Joe's stupidity is, it is just as ridiculous to make fun of people's wording in prayer if they're praying in faith and truth.
posted on 05.11.2007 11:08 AM41
Jesse, I agree with you. I'm a big fan of praying on your own in private instead of praying in public and putting on a big show. The bible has something to say about people who try to get the best seats next to the "important" "powerful" people and make a big display of praying in public. For instance, like last week in the White House during the National Day of Prayer....
posted on 05.11.2007 11:23 AM42
#5 may need some rethinking. Read the book of Acts and see if Paul thought his testimony was something he should tell.
posted on 05.11.2007 12:12 PM43
Wow, that was a rather negative article. There are many trappings of evangelicalism that I agree are foolish, and certainly you could have written on the subject wisely and compassionately with a look forward to a correction of some of the imbalances. Instead, you mock and deride a number of practices I have no problem with and have in fact brought me far closer to the Lord.
Testimonies? Heartfelt, original prayer and -- gasp -- in PUBLIC to boot? Calling to people to come up and receive the gift of salvation? My best friend was a nominal/cultural Catholic who happened to visit a Pentecostal church when they gave an altar call, and much to her complete surprise, she actually saw a vision of Jesus and felt a force draw her up to the front. She was born again that very day and has been a strong Christian (in the midst of some amazingly-difficult circumstances) for many, many years. (Note: I'm not implying Catholics can't be born-again Christians.)
Testimonies of what Jesus has done for us are powerful, very powerful. They're God-stories, and they release faith into the atmosphere. Prayer was NEVER, EVER meant to be a liturgical, ritualistic practice. It is intimate, loving, communion of thought and intent with a personal Lord. Prayer is almost like a force, decreeing into earthly reality that which first exists in Heaven.
I do agree with you on the tract/witness/converts/selling Jesus issue wholeheartedly. The original followers of Jesus came to Him and subsequently His apostles and disciples because they beheld visions, heard true prophecies, saw the blind see and the deaf hear and the lame walk, witnessed the dead rising from the grave, and saw the good news preached to the poor in spirit. We don't need more church programs and cute pamphlets, we need more Holy Spirit to bring revival to the land. The true gospel is POWER!
posted on 05.11.2007 12:56 PM44
Berean said it well.
I am uncomfortable with the criticism of brothers and sisters who go out to pass out tracts, offer public prayer, etc.
I see no alternative presented. Are we supposed to just go to work, go to school, go to church, and keep our mouths shut? Be happy we are not wearing Jesus t-shirts and WWJD bracelets?
The fellow who met you at the lunch counter - can you give him a little credit? He was awkward. He was looking for new souls, not old ones. Well, at least he was trying to give someone the gospel. Do you think Jesus was unhappy with him?
You may have some better ideas about how to reach the unsaved with the gospel message, and how to disciple those who do believe. But I don't see those presented. I just see the efforts of those who are trying, however poorly, to reach the lost being ridiculed.
It seems, from the NT example, that the main method of evangelism was visiting synagogues (not real possible these days) and open air preaching. Is that what you want to see?
How do you give the gospel to the man who cut you off on the freeway? I know, you don't give him the finger, you don't exhibit road rage. But how do you tell him the name and message of Jesus Christ? I don't know that you can.
posted on 05.11.2007 6:59 PM45
All of you need to do some Bible checking.
Eternal life is only by believing in the Lord Jesus.
Over and over this is the ONLY condition.
And you will find at least 12 example of people saved only by believing in the Lord Jesus.
Lordship salvation is not salvation at all but a twist that religiously leads only to hell.
You may also want to go to www.biblemanuals.com
fred
posted on 05.13.2007 4:29 PM46
I find the concerns expressed over praying the Our Father (Lord's Prayer) baffling. That prayer was given by our Lord Himself was He was questioned about how we ought to pray. Some of the Catholic saints spent their whole lives meditating on the words - just contemplating Almighty God as "our Father" apparently kept Teresa of Avila busy for years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spontaneous paryer, but the suggestion that it is somehow better than the words of Jesus strikes me as somewhat presumptious. I think Joe's point is that any prayer - whether human words or God's - can become thoughtless repetition if we allow it.
posted on 05.14.2007 1:42 AM47
God IS Irish ;-)
posted on 05.14.2007 2:59 PM48
I may have to reserve some judgment on what your friend Jared Bridges has to say. Seems as though he thinks Casino Royale is a good movie.
You may say, wow that came out of the blue. Well, not so. I did read your article and think you have some good points. I was however shocked when I discovered your friend's taste in movies.
From review by Christianity (Rated PG-13, the film perhaps should be treated as an R-rated film for intense sequences of violent action (lots of gun play, beatings and blood), an intense scene of torture involving a man's scrotum (the impact is not shown but heard), sexual content (typical Bond euphemisms and unmarried characters rolling around with clothes on or under covers) and nudity (while female characters are often in skimpy outfits leaving little to the imagination, the "nudity" refers to a male character sitting nude in a chair during a torture scene, but nothing is shown)
posted on 05.15.2007 1:19 AM49
Regarding the Catholic/Orthodox practice of non-spontaneous prayer:
A difference must be distinguished betweeen perseverance in prayer, which is explicitly approved by Christ in the Parable of the Corrupt Judge; and "vain repetitions", which are condemned, referring to the superstitious notion that a certain number of prayers will achieve a magical effect (or more prayers, stronger effect), along the lines of "Abracadabra" or a magic spell.
posted on 05.15.2007 2:53 AM50
Great post. Have any good posts on Rick Warren?
posted on 05.15.2007 9:45 AM51
About number 8
I was at non-church event where an Evangical minister gave the opening prayer.
And exeptionly longwinded prayer with much more "i"s and "we"s than "thou"s.
I was thinkng I hope the next person makes a prayer
"Lord, have mercy on me a sinner."
To a point, that style is fine and even exellent, but in my experience not many know the point.
posted on 05.27.2007 11:07 PM52
Well, this is gonna sound pretty odd, but I basically got saved by reading a chick tract. I wondered "could this possibly be true??" and I decided to find out by reading the Bible. But the tract was what started it.
posted on 05.28.2007 2:26 PM53
RiQVh4 name is Kostya.My nick is Zold . I want to find friends .ICQ 324600825
posted on 07.18.2007 9:27 PM54
Hi!
posted on 07.19.2007 1:35 PMnice to meet you!
55
I think the biggest issue here, is one of Christian docrine. People say somthing foolish like doctrine doesn't matter. And the problem with people who preach a nominal Christianity is that they tend to only talk about Christanity in a nominal way. To say that docrine doesn't matter is like saying that medicene doesn't matter to a doctor. Well you might say its all about a relationship with God, I would say amen, so what is your relationship with God based on?? If we do have a relationship with God its only through the truth that is in Christ, what is that truth(doctrine). Becuase we have this evangelism that isn't based on Bible(doctrine). This is where we in America have gone wrong and this why we must study men like Jonathen Edwards, my favorite George Whitefield, and Jon Owens and many of the puritans and reformers. This is also why we need men to exposite the Word. I agre with the list, I think pragmatism is at the heart of the issue. People want to be practical and sacrfice having sound Christian docrine which is the heart of what Christianity is. As Charles Hadden Spurgeon said: " To Deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ".
God Bless
Ken
posted on 09.09.2007 6:35 PM56
You don't think this a bit harsh. What a burden you have put on men. How can anyone be saved. You have shot down everything. I agree with yopu to a certain extint. But not on everything. How can anyone be saved? His yoke is easy His burden is light. But his Grace is not cheap.
"How can the hear without a preacher?" A evangelist is a Preacher and a soul winner. Not a rick Warren. he's not a evanglist. He's a Pastor. And not a good one. He's a deciever.
Coversion is from the death of sin without the savior Jesus Christ. To coverting the soul.
Finney was know to refresh a sleeping Church. Peoples hearts were harding and falling away from the Lord as our Country was moving toward Civil War. Finney, not of his will, was a refresher of the Church. If you remember history, or read Finney's own biography. Many Saints were already praying for a revival. Finney was just a willing instrument of God.
If you can not ask anyone if the know Jesus as a Personal savior. If you can give a testimony, which we over come by the blood of the Lamb and the word of Our testimony. If praying the sinner's prayer is totally useless how can we ever be saved? By what standards? What a burden you have Placed on men. Are you willing to carry that burden??!
And what about these protestant prayer? I taught Protestants were not into creeds. Their only stand is New Testament biblical Christianity and to protest the Catholic Church.
You don't think this a bit harsh. What a burden you have put on men. How can anyone be saved. You have shot down everything. I agree with you to a certain extint. But not on everything. How can anyone be saved? His yoke is easy His burden is light. But his Grace is not cheap.
How can the hear without a preacher. A evagelist ia a Preacher. Not A rick Warren. he's not a eva nglist. He's a Pastor. And not a good one. He's a deciever.
Coversion is from the death of sin without the savior Jesus Christ. Coverting the soul.
Jack Chick is a Soul winner and one of the truest watchmen of our day warning the Church Of jesus Christ for 30 years now.
If you dimiss all these things. Who can be saved. By what standards. What a unnessary burden you have placed on Men
Danny
posted on 09.09.2007 8:52 PM57
You don't think this a bit harsh. What a burden you have put on men. How can anyone be saved. You have shot down everything. I agree with yopu to a certain extint. But not on everything. How can anyone be saved? His yoke is easy His burden is light. But his Grace is not cheap.
"How can the hear without a preacher?" A evangelist is a Preacher and a soul winner. Not a rick Warren. he's not a evanglist. He's a Pastor. And not a good one. He's a deciever.
Coversion is from the death of sin without the savior Jesus Christ. To coverting the soul.
Finney was know to refresh a sleeping Church. Peoples hearts were harding and falling away from the Lord as our Country was moving toward Civil War. Finney, not of his will, was a refresher of the Church. If you remember history, or read Finney's own biography. Many Saints were already praying for a revival. Finney was just a willing instrument of God.
If you can not ask anyone if the know Jesus as a Personal savior. If you can give a testimony, which we over come by the blood of the Lamb and the word of Our testimony. If praying the sinner's prayer is totally useless how can we ever be saved? By what standards? What a burden you have Placed on men. Are you willing to carry that burden??!
And what about these protestant prayer? I taught Protestants were not into creeds. Their only stand is New Testament biblical Christianity and to protest the Catholic Church.
You don't think this a bit harsh. What a burden you have put on men. How can anyone be saved. You have shot down everything. I agree with you to a certain extint. But not on everything. How can anyone be saved? His yoke is easy His burden is light. But his Grace is not cheap.
How can the hear without a preacher. A evagelist ia a Preacher. Not A rick Warren. he's not a eva nglist. He's a Pastor. And not a good one. He's a deciever.
Coversion is from the death of sin without the savior Jesus Christ. Coverting the soul.
Jack Chick is a Soul winner and one of the truest watchmen of our day warning the Church Of jesus Christ for 30 years now.
If you dimiss all these things. Who can be saved. By what standards. What a unnessary burden you have placed on Men
Danny
posted on 09.09.2007 8:53 PM58
Salvation begins with the word repent! That is a word that seems to be missing today when the gospel is presented. I do agree that many have a false "salvation" because they prayed some prayer or responded to an altar call.
posted on 09.10.2007 8:47 AMI don't think we should through the baby out with the bath water though. There are many people who are ready when an altar call is given and their lives produce fruit of righteousness thereafter. That is the test of whether or not anyone is truly "saved".
59
Christian bookstores that have any classics usually have them in the bargain bin.
posted on 09.10.2007 8:55 PM60
I needed this, especially #5. About #6: I agree with comment 58. The Bible says the jailer was told "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.." and he did. Others were told "Repent therefore and be converted...".
posted on 11.13.2007 7:21 PM61
I needed this, especially #5. About #6: I agree with comment 58. The Bible says the jailer was told "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.." and he did. Others were told "Repent therefore and be converted...".
posted on 11.13.2007 7:26 PMAbout #10: No, our hearts have not always been seeking Jesus -- Rom 3:11-12.
62
I forgot to mention a note about praying in public: Jesus said don't do it, but go into your closet to pray.
posted on 11.13.2007 7:44 PM