Liberals should love evangelicals
From here:
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36″Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
From here:
Look, I don’t agree with evangelicals on theology or on their typically conservative views on taxes, health care or Iraq. Self-righteous zealots like Pat Robertson have been a plague upon our country, and their initial smugness about AIDS (which Jerry Falwell described as “God’s judgment against promiscuityâ€) constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse. Moralizing blowhards showed more compassion for embryonic stem cells than for the poor or the sick and as recently as the 1990s, evangelicals were mostly a constituency against foreign aid.
Yet that has turned almost 180 degrees. Today, many evangelicals are powerful internationalists and humanitarians — and liberals haven’t awakened to the transformation.
….
In parts of Africa where bandits and warlords shoot or rape anything that moves, you often find that the only groups still operating are Doctors Without Borders and religious aid workers: crazy doctors and crazy Christians.
From here:
31 “But when the Son of Man[d] comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations[e] will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’
37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[f] you were doing it to me!’
41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.â€
When Christians are hated more for their politics than loved for their mercy the gospel isn’t alive and well*.
*For those uncharitable commentators out there, I am by no means teaching a social gospel, simply pointing out the facts that often the church in America has been more concerned about politics than living the gospel.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I am (although I probably shouldn’t be) surprised that the disdain for evangelicals in the past has largely come from politcal views. I am of the view that many of our laws are based on morality, unfortunately and ironically our expressions of morality have not come in the form of justice and mercy (ironic because we fail to miss our own immorality in how we treat others) but in the form of demanding non-christians live a moral life. What a joke.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
If we shouldn’t demand that non-christians live a moral life then perhaps we should abolish all laws. EVERY law prohibits someone from doing something that they WANT to do and many times believe that it is OK to do. Thus EVERY law is forcing the morality of one group upon another group. So yes, we should pass laws that “force” people to be moral.
Speed laws “force” people to drive in a morally responsible way.
Thus it is the work of the govt. to “force” a type of morality upon the sinful human race.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I thinl there’s a difference however between general morality and Christian morality. Humanism observes some rules of behaviour that is beneficial to society and limited government to that is more profitable than a minority forcing a majority to, for instance, abstain from homosexual marriage.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
OK - brief thread hijack - but it does my heart good to see that cheaters don’t always win.
The Mannings are 2-0 in the Superbowl
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
A difference between “general morality” and “Christian Morality”???
Care to explain the difference?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Go GIANTS!!!
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Count me as one liberal who is quite pleased with the Evangelical movement to the left.
I think some Democrats are beginning to see the “light” and that is good. The Democrats really hurt themselves when they became known as the godless party. And some Republicans are seeing that GOP does not mean God’s Only Party.
On another note:
ALL law has a moral, ethical base. Without such a base the law becomes meaningless. That foundation does not have to be God or the Bible but there must be some agreed upon moral or ethical base.
Bruce
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I would add……….politics are dominated by issues, many times single or hot button issues.
As Christians, our bigger concern is having a fleshed out , full-orbed Biblical worldview. Far too often people have a Democratic Christian worldview or a Republican Christian worldview. Forget the party designation…….Develop a comprehensive Christian worldview and THEN vote accordingly. Often we get it backwards. We look at the candidates and see which one is anti-abortion. End of story. Our faith is much more comprehensive than any one issue.
Bruce
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
“General Morality” (sometimes called Natural Law) came into being apart from Christianity. Some examples come from the stoic Greeks, whereas probably the earliest form was in the Code of Hammurabi (which predated Moses by about 300 years), which some scholars believe was carried down from Noaic Law apart from the line to Abraham.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Christians should love everybody-Even when they are DEAD WRONG politically and theologically, like many liberals are.
Conservatives are compassionate- about life in the womb, about the value of all human life. They do not define compassion as a handout, they define it as helping people to help themselves. They defend people’s rights to freedom even though their faces are not white, and they don’t speak our language.
But Christians should still love liberals, and guide them in the truth when they are liberal theologically. We should guide the emerging brother who refuses to take the scripture literally, and who elevates social justice above salvation. We should help the seeker sensitive brother who takes liberties and says God smiles on non-believers and calls them his children.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Shockingly, pastorboy believes the only person who doesn’t need help is someone who thinks, believes and does exactly like he does.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:27 am
BROAD BRUSH and GENERALIZATION WARNING:
February 4th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I am of the opinion that starting wars is not terribly compassionate.
Nor is advocating an immigration plan that calls for our government to go door-to-door in an effort to kick 12 million people out of this country regardless of whether they are the parent of or married to a citizen. (Talk about not being pro-family.)
(Proceed now to claim that Iraq was about preserving human rights (what about invading Sudan?) And that illegal aliens are a bunch of lawless criminals.)
February 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Putting aside specific political positions for a moment, I find it interesting that when I bring up the point that Christians should be known less for their politics than for their works of mercy immediately commenters begin justifying why they should be wielding political power.
Christians need to be very careful about weilding political power, it is anti-thetical to the servanthood to which we are called. Caesar never washed his followers feet.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Tim,
I just came across the article and decided toread all the comments before I posted a comment.
What you just said, is what I was going to hit on.
I was going to “Amen” this statement:
When Christians are hated more for their politics than loved for their mercy the gospel isn’t alive and well*.
The things that I find troubling are Christians who get upset when Christian pastors go out and try to be on the frontline t help eliminate poverty, provide AIDS relief and ……
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Re-hi-jack…
I’m a big Pats fan. That was an awesome Super Bowl. I died several times watching it. The G-men just played better D.
With that said, I’m still pretty down about it. =)
Trying to be a humble loser,
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Christians should only be upset when people do this WITHOUT also preaching the Gospel. Anyone can provide relief apart from the Gospel, silly! I mean, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet…they help eliminate poverty and global health crises, but they are just feeding, clothing, and healing people right into hell. And if Christians do the same without preaching the Gospel, we are the most hate filled of all. We have the best news on earth, and we keep it to ourselves in the name of P.E.A.C.E etc.
My friends are in Cambodia right now, among the least, the last, and the lost on top of the garbage piles and in the midst of the child sex trade. They bring education, AIDS relief, mini businesses, education~but first they bring the Gospel. And they bring the Gospel in conjunction with all these things. That is where I depart with the social Gospel-when our help of others somehow becomes self righteousness that elevates the work above the preaching of the Gospel.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
The interesting thing to me is that Jesus specifically warned us about not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the prisoners. It seems to me that if we don’t do that than we aren’t really sharing the Gospel, at least the way Jesus saw it. Why didn’t He specifically say something like, “when you feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner, make sure you tell them they will go to Hell unless they accept me as savior�
I guess my point is that we tend to reverse the priorities that Jesus gave us by somehow making the proclamation of the Gospel more of a priority than the demonstration of the Gospel. Also, I don’t see them as separate things. They are two sides of the same coin.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
But shouldn’t they both go together?
And I guess the question is, that I always ask myself and wonder about, even stumble over, are they mutually exclusive [feeding/clothing etc and the Good News about Jesus], or can they be done seperately and still be faithful to the Gospel as a whole, or do they have to always be in conjunction with each other?
What do you think Phil?
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
The contrast here isn’t between doing works of mercy and the gospel (those are inseperable to a Christian). The contrast is between how the church in America is seen as being more interested in dominating her fellow citizens via political power than she is in living the gospel.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I guess what I’m trying to say is…
Is it alright to clothe and feed someone who is in need, but never mention the wonderful Grace and Love of God through Jesus? How can I not share?
But I realize, my words are worthless without action to back them up and show God’s love, unconditionally.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:23 am
That means, even if they refuse to even listen to me talk about Jesus.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Joe,
I actually went back and edited my comment, and we probably crossed paths when you were posting.
I don’t think they can really be separated. I just think the the demonstration can look different in different contexts. If I’m talking to my neighbor who makes 100K a year, he probably doesn’t need me to feed him. But there are other ways I can demonstrate the Gospel to him. I can genuinely care about him and his family. I can listen to him.
All I’m getting at is that boiling down the Gospel to words has seemed to give some Christians the idea that handing someone a tract is “sharing the Gospel”, and that if they do that they have fulfilled their evangelistic duties.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Joe, I might add that my friends in Cambodia do both at the same time, I.E. as they are fixing teeth, they are sharing the Good News in word and in deed…etc. I agree with Phil, they are two sides of the same coin. The problem I have is when one side-either side-is elevated or is done to the exclusion of the other. It is not the Gospel then. Even Hindus or Muslims or Athiests can help others-but the people they help are just as lost.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Tim,
Sorry, I don’t want to hijack this thread. I think there related anyways.
I think the Gospel never works when it’s presented from a position of power. It has to always look like Jesus. It has to be in the interest of serving others. To me, this goes against the major driving force in politics, which seems to be self-preservation.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I agree, and even more than politics, this is how the system of this world works, fundamentally speaking. It’s the opposite of God’s Kingdom:
I agree, the Gospel with words and action are two sides to the same coin. It’s just, I think our actions speak louder than our words do.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I hear this a lot, but I don’t really think it’s the case. There are of course secular humanitarian agencies, but I think the work they do pales in comparison to that done by Christians. Hindus and Muslims really don’t make it a point to help the poor. If it weren’t for Christians (and Judaism to be fair), it seems to me that the whole idea of helping the less fortunate and poor wouldn’t even exist in the world as it does now.
The Christian concept of charity just isn’t in the DNA of other religions. I guess that’s why I feel that if adherents to other religions want to come along and help in these endeavors, Christians should probably welcome them. It seems like it is a door that could be open to them to actually come to Christ.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
1. Both Scriptures cites are misappropriated
2. Our church and myself individually view the care of the poor and needy, widows and orphans etc, as scripturally mandated. However none of us believe that these works “save” people.
3. AIDS is the consequence of promiscuity, as are all other std’s.
God does not remove the consequence of our sinful actions in the here and now. If you steal or murder e.g., you go to prison. If you commit adultery you live with the possible consequences of losing your spouse, family, reputation or …..
As for the innocent who have contracted AIDS from transfusions, or by other means not of their own doing, their blood is on the heads of those who lived lifestyles that fostered the initial spread of the disease.
With all of this in mind, the church should minister to those who are afflicted, including homosexuals.
As for liberals….who cares? They are the true “holier than thou, know it all, pharisees”.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
and
Don’t you think this is painting a broad picture, perhaps with a bit of ignorance of these religions?
I mean, I’m inclined to agree with you, but after studying those religions specifically, I see much in the way to alms and care to the poor in many other religions besides Christianity. I see that thread among religions as being there because Men are all created in God’s image, and it’s part of being human to care at some level. I’d say that’s in our DNA as living beings. Since those religions are made by men’s minds, I would expect to see a common thread of care for the less fortunate.
I think this is a better informed statement:
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Chris,
You rightfully acknowledge that innocents contract AIDS. But did you know that those people are far more than the ‘promiscuous ones’ who spread it? So we should think: If AIDS is the result of promiscuity, what should we do with the children who are born with it, or the women [and men] who are raped and get it? Or the faithful partners who get it from being with their hubby or wife?
It seems to me that this ‘punnishment’ on promiscuity affects way more people than the promiscuous. Which makes me question it as a punnishment alltogether.
And let’sremember, before we’re so harsh on promiscuity, and ahem, holier than thou about it, how many times we lusted after women/men today.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Joe C.,
Yes, I might have been a little sweeping in my statements. I guess I was talking from experience somewhat. I have some friends who are Hindu, and they seem to more in the mindset that the poor are where they are at for a reason, and not much can be done about it.
I think it would be correct that any good that is done in the name of charity is ultimately from God. All humans were created in His image, and still have some capacity to care, despite the effects of the Fall.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Sure Phil, I see what you’re saying. And I figured you were thinking of the whole “Karma” aspect, where when you’re poor it’s because of your terrible past life. Still, they have caring for the poor in Hinduism.
And what you said about all peoples capacity to care still, is exactly what I was getting at. I’m glad you understood me.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
One of the five things that every Muslim must do is help the poor. It’s in the Koran. I would disagree with Phil’s statement.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Right Joe.
Too bad the Giants could help the poor Patriots win….=(
February 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hey hey hey….I got something crazy to think about…
What if the “Antichrist” helped the poor? Is that from God or not?
LOL…kidding…
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I guess that’s the same as saying…
“if such and such unbeliever helps the poor, is it still from God?”
Dangit, I hate answering my own questions…
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Joe M.,
Point taken.
I guess my point wasn’t so much about whether or not they do it, as to why they do it.
It seems to me that if they do help the poor, that is because there is still a part of the religion that contains some truth. I like how N.T Wright describes other religions and gods by saying they are at best parodies of the one true God and his Law. They may have some hints of truth in them, but they are distortions.
Perhaps by recognizing that they contain some truth, Christians can use that as a starting point to reach them, rather than say everything about them is useless. I just don’t like saying that all humanitarian work done by Muslims, Hindus, etc. is worthless, which is what I was trying to refute.
Phew…too early on Monday yet to be having this discussion.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
A question is floating through this discussion? Is it OK to “help” someone without sharing the gospel? I would contend that the very help itself IS preaching the gospel. It is the gospel preaching of “seeing” that the Bible talks about. Through our good works people “see” the God we serve.
Certainly there is a time and place for verbal proclamation of the gospel but it is certainly not a requirement. We must be aware of circumstance and situation when dealing with people. I know people who HATE Christianity, yet are friends or family with me. They were raised in Church, burnt by the Church. I don’t need to “tell” them anything. I need to “show” them by my actions what real Christianity is all about.
When I hold the door for someone I am preaching the gospel. When I engage the cashier at the grocery in a conversation I am preaching the gospel. Since we are the Church the gospel is a part of our DNA. It should be a part of our very being. We should not have to have soulwinning activities because our whole life should be one living, breathing, talking gospel.
Bruce
February 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Humanitarian works can showcase the gospel, but they must be done in Jesus’ name. The church should not partner with unbelievers or cults in these endeavors.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/01/unequally-yoked-ii-cor.html
February 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
–I guess my point is that we tend to reverse the priorities that Jesus gave us by somehow making the proclamation of the Gospel more of a priority than the demonstration of the Gospel.–
We have not reversed it, but it is being reversed now. Jesus’ last command to His disciples was to take the Gospel to the whole world. Jesus and John the Baptist took the message of repentence to the people. As well, Jesus healed people and fed some of them, but the important thing was the the Gospel was preached.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Jazz,
If you want to get technical, Matthew 28:18-20 says:
I don’t see anything in there about preaching. Actually Jesus emphasizes the whole demonstration aspect again, by telling them make disciples and to teach people to obey.
Certainly the message is part of it, but the message becomes powerless if it’s not backed up by actions.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
If you really want to have fun show me in the qualifications of pastors where it says anything about being able to preach.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hey…”able to teach” rhymes with “able to preach…”…
That counts…RIGHT!?
=) lol
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Phil,
I would also add that the commission is to “make disciples” (as opposed to “make converts”). The difference between ‘disciple’ and ‘convert’ is that ‘discipleship’ is based on action, whereas ‘conversion’ is based upon a mental exercise.
Western/Greek culture would suggest that you become a convert before you can become a disciple, that the change in your mind leads to a change in your heart, which then leads to a change in your actions. Eastern/Hebrew culture would suggest that you become a convert by being a disciple - that your action becomes a demonstration of the change in your heart, which gradually becomes a change in your mind.
Modernism was structurally based on the Western/Greek model, whereas post-modernism is based more on the Eastern/Hebrew model…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Interesting…Chris.
Hate to pry..but do you have maybe a good source for that information? It would come in kind of handy in explanations…but I gotta know it’s for real…
As for disciple vs convert, that distinction is a good one to make.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I believe the qualification of a pastor/elder is “apt to teach”, which belies a distinct difference between ‘preaching’ and ‘teaching’. It seems, though, that this distinction is blurred by many Christians - evangelical and fundamental alike - because the lead ‘pastor’ has become the ‘preacher’. In doing so, if he spends too much time teaching (the evangelical trend), you get the fundamentalists griping that he’s not “preaching the word” (because he’s not ‘preaching’). If he spends too much time preaching (the fundamentalist trend), you get the evangelicals griping that he’s irrelevant.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Joe C.,
Chris stole my thunder with his post, but I agree with him. If you want a good book about the Jewish origins of Christianity, I would recommend Our Father Abraham by Marvin R. Wilson.
I think it does a good job of covering the basics, and it’s a relatively quick read.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I would second Phil’s recommendation, though if you’re looking for an online primer, RVL’s site and his page on the subject has some high-level items.
Also, in this article from a couple years back, I pulled together (in table format) East vs. West comparisons from multiple sources.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
–When I hold the door for someone I am preaching the gospel. When I engage the cashier at the grocery in a conversation I am preaching the gospel. Since we are the Church the gospel is a part of our DNA.–
Um, no, your not.
Understand, I’m not saying those are bad things. You may be behaving well, you may be doing some good things in doing that, but you’re not preaching the gospel simply by openning doors and behaving mannerly.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Jazz,
MY point is that proclamation and demonstration are one and the same. If we only truly preach the gospel when we open our mouths and quote Bible verses…………then I suspect most of us don’t do a lot of gospel preaching from day to day.
To Rick,
Where do you buy your groceries, gas, clothing and lottery tickets? How dare you partner with the heathen.
There are many heathens and cults doing God’s work (even if they don’t know it) and the only thing that matters is that the work is getting done. It is Christian Ghetto thinking that suggests we can only support and work through groups that have their name modified with the word Christian. (and I suspect that even some groups who call themselves Christian are on the heathen list because they are not the “right” type of Christian)
This type of thinking makes it a sin to buy a raffle ticket from the local sports booster club…………..because that means we are supporting or partnering with the heathen.
The heathen and I are indeed partners. We are ALL human beings, ALL created in the image of God, ALL loved by God. The only difference is that one of us has heard the gospel and the other hasn’t. By walking with the heathen in our common humanity I am in the best place to share with him through word and action the good news of the gospel.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Sorry Jazz,
I think you are dead wrong here. The gospel is an inherent part of the believer. It is what we are, what we live.
The world is filled with Christians who barge through the door, never holding it for anyone, who drive like a maniac, who never engage the cashier other than to give her a tract or to mutter some memorized soulwinning mantra.
We must show them before we earn the right to tell them. What right do most Christians (Myself included many times) have to tell their neighbors anything?
So Jazz, please tell me how many people did you personally, completely verbalize the complete, unvarnished gospel to in the last week? I am curious to know if this is just an academic exercise or one of reality?
Bruce
February 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Boy that sounds familiar.
Careful Bruce you’re about to have your faith used for target practice.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Thanks Chris and Phil, this was what I was looking for.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Tim,
I have been on both ends of this discussion.
I rather enjoy being able to have a conversation with the girl at Meijer’s without having to give her a tract or quoting Scripture to her. I am interested in her as a person FIRST, and a possible convert second. When the Holy Spirit give opportunity to explicitly talk about the faith I will do so. But I refuse to be a soulwinning bully who only sees people as prospects for heaven. Get em in……….and and get down the street.
Bruce
February 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Bruce,
Absolutely.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
See, this is where I would disagree with you. I think we live in a society that separates our spiritual life from our everyday life so much that we have bought into it in a lot of ways. Christians tend to idealize the presentation of the message, but puch back the more nitty-gritty day to day stuff. That why megachurches are very often centered around a pastor who is a great speaker and who is very charismatic.
What if a person is a horrible communication skills, but has heart to reach his neighbor? What if he can hardly put two sentences together? How can that person share the Gospel. Very simply, he can still live it. We have made so a person who is not a gifted communicator feels like he is able to make less of an evangelistic impact than the preacher in the expensive suit on Sunday. When in reality, the person with less skill can potentially have a lot more just by being who God has created him to be and being obedient everyday.
I like how Paul says it in Philipians 4:14-16:
A star doesn’t have to try to shine, it just does it. It’s inherent in its nature. I think that’s how evangelism should be for Christians. It’s just part of who they are.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Phil,
Superb!!!
A star doesn’t have to try to shine, it just does it. It’s inherent in its nature. I think that’s how evangelism should be for Christians. It’s just part of who they are.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“I would also add that the commission is to “make disciples†(as opposed to “make convertsâ€). The difference between ‘disciple’ and ‘convert’ is that ‘discipleship’ is based on action, whereas ‘conversion’ is based upon a mental exercise.â€
The difference is ….conversion is a work done by the Holy Spirit. Discipleship is the church’s service to the converted.
“–When I hold the door for someone I am preaching the gospel. When I engage the cashier at the grocery in a conversation I am preaching the gospel. Since we are the Church the gospel is a part of our DNA.–“
Holding a door only proclaims the Gospel if people know that you are a member of the Body of Christ, and the only way they know who you are and what you believe, is if you tell them. Faith comes by hearing…..
By your standards I have brought countless women into the Kingdom, since I constantly open doors for them.
“The world is filled with Christians who barge through the door, never holding it for anyone, who drive like a maniac, who never engage the cashier other than to give her a tract or to mutter some memorized soulwinning mantra.â€
Again, how can anyone know that you are a discourteous christian if you don’t tell them? How do I know that anyone is a believer or not withour words?
Get your heads out the Franciscan fallacy and speak as you “do”
February 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Chris P,
You were doing really good until you had to add your asinine idiocy at the end…
So can you actually state things to people without the attack and anger and your bitterness coming through?
Still praying for you to go to that anger management course.
iggy
February 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Chris P,
I never said my “works” bring anyone into the kingdom. But then, my words don’t bring anyone into the Kingdom either. My works and my words bring to light the Kingdom. The rest is God’s business.
Believe me the average unconverted person can spot the religious types a mile away. They are the ones with uniforms on and who speak in code. They can spot hypocrites a mile a way also. They hear your words BUT they are far more interested in how you live.
Chris, tell me how this works out personally in your life? You speak of theory here……….how do you work it out day to day? How many people did you explicitly verbalize the complete gospel message to in the last week? How many made professions of faith?
The reason I ask these questions is not to personally jab at you. I see a lot of posturing on this issue and I really want to know what “reality” is for those who oppose they way I live out the gospel.
For me at the end of the day………..the measure is never how many people did I verbalize the gospel to. The only question for me is Was I Christ to all I came in contact with today? Wife, kids, neighbors, friends, enemies and strangers.
Besides, as a pastor I have verbalized the gospel to thousands. Surely, I have enough soulwinning credits built up I don’t need to do it any more
February 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’d lean more to the left if the issue was simply helping those who need it… but often it becomes more of an issue of power.
Neil
February 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Chris P:
Um, no.
AIDS and all other STDs are often spread by promiscuity, but they’re not a consequence of it. AIDS, all other STDs, and all other human ailments are a consequence of sin, whether that sin is gluttony, self-righteousness, racism wrapped in a radio show, or “knowing” someone who isn’t your spouse (to go all King Jimmy on you).
AIDS should not be getting the vaunted status that it gets in many circles, absolutely eclipsing all other human suffering. But the short shrift that it gets in much of evangelicalism is 100% skubala.
Yeah, but for anyone who doesn’t rejoice in the (eventual) punishment of others, there’s no comfort in that.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
My point is that you can hold doors open as much as you want, and while it may make some people think your either a doorman or rather polite, it won’t make them think you’re presenting the Gospel to them.
Have I in any way made a statement saying that actions are unimportant? Or that how a person acts does not effect the message they give? I would dare say, I have not.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Jazz,
I don’t think Bruce is saying that holding doors is the only thing one has to do to share the Gospel. He’s just saying it’s part of it. I think the point we’re getting at is that reducing the Gospel to just one thing whether it be a verbal message or a kind act is wrong. It needs to be something that we live consistently in.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Phil,
Correct.
In general I find it interesting that those who come here and comment the most about evangelism, when asked about how it works out in their life day by day…………..silence.
For all the talk………..most of time evangelism is a great theory that few practice. Why? One reason is that they are convinced that the only way to share the gospel is to confront someone. Hand them a tract. Ask them the myriad of soulwinning questions we are taught to use. Or follow Ray Comfort’s plan. etc. etc. etc.
When we convince people that evangelism is an everyday lifestyle then we will certainly have many more people involved in the process. As long as evangelism only takes place when the Church says it does……..it is bound to fail.
The facts are alarming. Few Churches have any significant number of converts. Most Churches that are growing are doing so by transfer growth. I recently attended a 500 member Church that had 7 baptisms the previous year. 7! 7 is good I suspect when we consider that the majority of Churches do not have 1 baptism a year.
I am of the opinion that the whole Evangelism issue needs to be rethought, from the ground up. I guess that makes me emerging
Many Churches are still trying to use old, outdated, ineffective evangelistic methods. Attractionalism. (invite people to Church) Sensationalism (Ray Comfort, do a magic trick and then share he gospel) Door to Door, census taking, all had their time and place.
We live in a new time. Post-modern and Post-christian. The Church no longer has cultural or social significance. We must become missionaries to our own culture. We must engage them where THEY are rather than trying be bring them where we are.
Evangelism in the 21st century requires patience. We must get to know people. We must sincerely enter into their lives. We must see them as people FIRST before we can even begin to see them as potential converts.
We also must stop trying to evangelize other Christians. This is a real problem in Baptist Circles. We view all other sects but our own with suspicion.
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 8:25 am
–In general I find it interesting that those who come here and comment the most about evangelism, when asked about how it works out in their life day by day…………..silence.–
In general I find it interesting that those who want to play “who’s got the biggest” are those who consider themselves in unassailable positions.
Very well. I get very few opportunities to talk directly with people. One reason being that I am one of those whose speaking abilities are rather hampered. Another being that in the place where I work, I’m around people who are themselves ministers and are much more capable to communicating well to those who need it.
I am, if you wish, support for them in certain areas. I’m content enough with that status, and on occasions I’ve been able to do what I’m able.
Or, if you wish to continue the contest, when was the last time you sneaked literature and tapes and such into a closed country so those people could have some exposure to Gospel? When was the last time you travelled with a group to fairly isolated villages and even prisons in another country so you could help in sharing the Gospel with those people?
Consider yourself the winner, for all I care, if that gives you satisfaction. For myself, whatever. I think I’ve been given a bit of insight to why Paul called his boastings “madness”.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Phil said, “I think the point we’re getting at is that reducing the Gospel to just one thing whether it be a verbal message or a kind act is wrong. It needs to be something that we live consistently in.”
My son was in the service industry, restaurants to be specific, his wife still is. You should hear the stories of what that business is like on a Sunday morning. They both dreaded Sunday mornings. They found that our brothers and sisters tended to be the most demanding of the clientele they dealt with. Also, they were the most tight fisted when it came time to tip. We’ve all been there, they’re easy to spot on a Sunday morning.
I’m with ya, Bruce. I too believe our actions have to match our words. Keep opening those doors, I know I do! I do it with a smile too!
February 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Scotty,
Did anyone ever leave your son one of those tracts that looks like a $20 bill? Man, I hate those things…
February 6th, 2008 at 9:51 am
They got a TON of those $20 tracts. Most times that was the only tip on the table!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’ve gotten a couple of those tracts. The worst thing for me was during the week lunch time. You only get 3 maybe 4 tables and some Christian comes in during a rush and hogs my table. Even if they tip me good (which is a big if) they still kept me from making money b/c I couldn’t turn the table. Do your Bible study at home or at a coffee shop.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
That’s repulsive and worldly, almost as much so as browbeating an employee at a grocery store and then bragging about it.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I don’t go out with groups of Christians like I used to… but when I did, more than once I went back and “padded” the tips. Not so much a noble thing as I was just embarrassed by what was left.
Neil
February 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Jazz,
I wasn’t trying to have a contest. You missed my point if you thought that is what it was.
When people severely criticize others for the way they do something. suggesting that “their way” is the way to do it, it is fair to ask for an accounting of how that works out in their life. Is this just an academic exercise or is it “reality”
In College I was taught by men who read books but had no real experience in the pastoral world. Or they had been pastors when Moses got off the ark. They made all kind of pronouncements about what I should and should not do. Then I got out into the real world and found out some of my teachers were full of it.
If you will go back and read all my comments, and then read your last comment you will find that I actually defend what you do in the name of evangelism. I argue for a holistic view of evangelism where evangelism is part of our Christian DNA. Where act and word are evangelistic. The things you do are to be commended and very much a part of reaching people.
As to the service industry……..
My daughter-in-law is a waitress for Bob Evans. College Educated. Loves her job. She is a Christian BUT she has her share of stories about”so-called”Christians who stiff waitresses for tips, who are rude and demanding, and of course there are the tracts. Or the people who suck up her time trying to witness to her while she is working. (A drive by soulwinning experience?)
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
–When people severely criticize others for the way they do something. suggesting that “their way†is the way to do it, it is fair to ask for an accounting of how that works out in their life. Is this just an academic exercise or is it “reality‖
I don’t think I was severly criticizing you, if anything I tried to say that doing the things you were suggesting were fine and good. What I was trying to say is that doing nice things like holding doors should not be equating with telling people the Gospel. Those things may help, may give a presenter some level of legitimacy, but it isn’t the same thing.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
–If you will go back and read all my comments, and then read your last comment you will find that I actually defend what you do in the name of evangelism. I argue for a holistic view of evangelism where evangelism is part of our Christian DNA. Where act and word are evangelistic. The things you do are to be commended and very much a part of reaching people.–
But I would say that even though I see the need for, for example, updating websites and doing graphics work and labelling newsletters, I don’t consider that I’m necessarily “sharing the Gospel” in doing so. That isn’t meant to denigrate anything I do, but I respect those who do the real ministering to the individuals and groups, who do the preaching and singing and teaching.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I feel like we’re just going around in circles now, but where in Scripture is “real ministry” defined as preaching, singing, and teaching? Why can’t a mechanic or electrician be considered to be doing “real ministry” while practicing his trade? If he’s treating his clients fairly and helping them with a need, how is he not ministering to them?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Jazz,
Everyone has a part to play. We are are “part” of the body. There is no one template for being a Christian.
I have stood in the middle of a thousand people at a fair, lifted up my Bible and preached. Most people are not going to do that…..I have a certain physical, mental makeup that allows me to feel comfortable in such a situation. I don’t do it much any more because it is ineffective but I would do it again in a heartbeat if I thought it was.
I refuse to allow you (and I am being nice and smiling and being pastoral) to denigrate yourself because you don’t “do” what someone else does. We are all gifted differently. Human beings are anything but simple. We are complex creatures.
At the end of the day if every Christian will do what God has called and gifted them to………..we will make a difference in this world.
We must let this hired gun mentality in Christianity die. Where the gifted superstars are the super evangelists. The doctrine of the priesthood of the believers teaches that ALL of us are followers of Jesus and have access to God. No special saints. Gifted differently? Yes.
Whatever we do, let’s do it to the glory of God.
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
(Bruce to Jazz)
Bruce,
If Jazz were to be doing the things he was doing plus witnessing on the street, holding evangelistic meetings, passing out tracts - - would these more outwardly “evangelistic” parts of his ministry be wrong?
Also, a hypothetical question: if one of the members of John’s group is primarily a traveling evangelist who depends on others to do the follow up work, is the “traveling evangelist” at fault, if he is a person who truly is working through the Holy Spirit?
Don’t different members of the body have different primary roles in helping a non-believer come to Christ and a new believer grow? You have asked both John and Jazz for details of their work - been seemingly displeased with one and pleased with the other. By what criteria are you judging their work? And if part of sharing the gospel is how one lives ones whole life, how could you judge John’s work without knowing what kinds of relationships he has with people?
It’s as if you assume that people who are evangelistic in the sense of sharing the message of the gospel must not be living out the gospel in any other way. Are you not projecting from your own past?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Bruce,
My comment was written before seeing your last one. I would ask then, how do the following comments relate to your “condemnation” of John (pastorboy’s) work:
February 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Amy,
I gotta be honest………..I don’t have a clue about what you are trying to say.
I don’t know if you have read all my comments……..
I am really confused as to how you would come up with the conclusions you have?
I advocate for a holistic view of evangelism and the Christian life. I oppose the notion that only people who verbalize the message or do “certain” prescribed things are doing evangelistic.
I would argue that he word evangelism, evangelist, and soulwinning are terms that are loaded with 20th century evangelical baggage and probably are not helpful in the 21st century.
On a side note………I would challenge your hypothetical of a “traveling evangelist” I find no scriptural warrant for such an office within the Church but that is another rabbit path best left for another day.
If I am projecting anything from my past it is out of sickness…
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Amy,
I didn’t condemn John. I challenged his assumptions. I also wanted to know if John’s words were theory or reality. Fair, honest, sincere on my part.
However, a person evangelizes is fine. My truck is with those who criticize me for not doing things their way. I doubt there is an evangelistic method I haven’t tried at one point or the other over 35 years. I believe a new day requires new methods.
I do not believe we will effectively reach our generation using methods from the mid 20th Century. If people want to continue to use those methods……….fine. But, don’t expect me to buy into your program.
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Are you kidding me?
Seriously, look at your discussion with pastorboy, yesterday under “Are you kidding me?” Same type of questions you’re asking Jazz, different conclusions. Somehow you seem to have judged Jazz’s work as acceptable before God and Pastorboy’s not.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Amy,
I am sorry but I am not going to bite. Have a great day.
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I would have a difficult time condemning or even challenging the assumptions of someone who has a burden to share the Word of God with strangers. How often I truly feel God’s love for people I barely know - and wonder if my just being kind to them, praying for them, but not sharing the gospel with them is simply my own fear of the “awkward” situation.
Let’s see, the discussion on the article that is only for those who write here has gone something like this:
Person 1:
How do we handle Amy? She ALWAYS asks questions that try to trap.
Person 2: Yea, we all know she has an AGENDA.
Person 3: (not repeatable)
Person 4: I know, let’s ignore her!
Person 1: No, that would make us look bad.
Person 5: How about, answer with blessing, instead of cursing.
Person 6: Answer with truth wrapped in blessing!
Person 2: How clever!
Person 3: (slightly repeatable)
I imagine periodic exhortations have gone out to certain people (whom I could name but won’t) to just refrain from answering certain of my comments.
Oh, how those ODM’s hate to engage in dialogue! Refuse to answer questions! Act as if what they do is always above reproach!
February 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Doesn’t the B-attitudes say “Bless those who persecute you!”
Are you saying that wrong for being nice to you and blessing you?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Dear Amy,
You forgot about the one of casting pearls before swine.
I am free to answer you, but I won’t.
There has been a lot of dialog on this thread and many others with similar content. Lots of discussion. You come swooping in at the end of a discussion and want me to defend my comments and accuse me of duplicity.
If you want me to intract with you on some specific of evangelism. etc fine. I will gladly interact with you.
If you want to debate personalities………..here is a handful of pearls. I ain’t gonna do it.
Bruce
February 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Amy,
I’m not sure I’ve ever found a conversation with you to be all that beneficial so I’ve chosen to be nice to you and stay out of most it with you. I’ve seen people answer your questions again and again and you just keep repeating the questions. or maybe we don’t answer the questions but it doesn’t seem that too much actual dialogue goes on. Now, I suppose you could blame us 100% for that and maybe you’d be right but the way I see it, why keep hitting my head against a wall?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Did amy just create a fake, paranoid conversation to explain why no one wants to answer the same question thirty different times especially when framed with hypothetical situations?
February 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Tim,
So there has been no such conversation?
February 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I would ask then, how do the following comments relate to your views on evangelism, evangelism that may not be limited to but includes some of the following:
1)praying for the one(s) to whom one is ministering
1)preaching the gospel story
2) sharing the gospel (with words) with strangers
3)handing out tract(s)
4)giving out the New testament
5)giving out the whole bible
6)sharing the gospel (with words) with friends
.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
All of these (excepts “tracts” but one could argue that other written works would have served the same purpose) are old methods
1)praying for the one(s) to whom one is ministering
1)preaching the gospel story
2) sharing the gospel (with words) with strangers
3)handing out tract(s)
4)giving out the New testament
5)giving out the whole bible
6)sharing the gospel (with words) with friends
Are these things unbiblical?
February 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Are the above things (1-6) a program? When does something become a “program?” Why can’t we simply call it part (Please notice I said “part”) of a “biblical lifestyle?”
February 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Bruce, if I on this site tried to ask a person personal questions about his own sharing of the gospel, and then instead of having a kind word to say dogmatically proclaimed that “that wouldn’t work” etc, no one would have waited until the end of a discussion to swoop down on me.
Since you seemed to have previously assumed that I am a fundamentalist, and thus no different that a fundamentalist Muslim, the swine insinuation is quite the cut. I hope that you have indeed topped anything I would ever think of saying to you.
So, hats off to Bruce, for the “cut of the day.”
February 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Amy,
Any method you feel God wants you to use is fine with me.
In my opinion, in post-modern, post-christian, 21st century America, handing out tracts, bibles, printed literature are pretty much a waste of time. They return very little bang for the buck.
In other countries this may not be the case. That is why contextualization is important. We need to know our culture.
I don’t think door-to-door or street preaching, along with Bus ministries, etc are effective today. Different time. Different methods. People don’t want to be bothered by strangers in their homes. Their home is their castle. Americans cherish and protect their privacy. What right does some Christian have to violate that privacy?
The above mentioned methods died out years ago but some continue to make their methods a test of orthodoxy or of really “caring” for souls. If people want to use these methods, fine………just don’t judge others who don’t.
The most effective form of evangelism begins with a Christian who lives for God who lets his/her light shone through his/her conduct. We have no right to speak in Jesus name until we live like followers of Jesus. The world can spot a phony a mile away.
I am for sincerely loving people to Jesus. Love them first as a fellow human being before seeing them as a prospective convert. I am for stopping the insanity of Christians evangelizing other Christians. Even now, some who read this blog think of some of us as “unsaved.” As God gives opportunity, share your faith.
Evangelism in the 21st century requires a long term investment in time and effort No quick converts. No get’em down the aisle, get’em saved, on to the next one soulwinning.
Quite frankly we need a whole generation of Christians who will become “worldly” for the sake of reaching the world.
Bruce
PS Amy you are fundamentalist. I quoted a Bible verse, yes? The inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? If your dialog is sincere I am all for dialoging. If not, then any further dialog is casting pearls before swine or in the Living Bible a waste of time and effort.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Well put Bruce.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I have said repeatedly that evangelism needs to include both proclamation and ri