When I started writing the last blog in mind I also wanted to include a conversation I had Monday night and how it tied to some of the principles addressed in Way of the Master (WotM) as well as my overall displeased perception of Christians. The WotM study did bring up so harsh criticisms of the modern church that I think are fair and to certain degrees true. While the discussion/debate I had on Monday was one of those that I couldn't pray for something more. Seeds were probably planted and the opportunity just presented itself as clear as day.
I was just hanging out in my room as usual, lately more people have been stopping by either to game or just chill and one of the guys happened to notice my new set of Systematic Theology. I have a couple shelves full of books that I have been accumulating and slowing reading. Anyways, being sparked by curiosity the individual pointed out my collection and proceeded to ask me about my beliefs. I was more than happy to tell him my stance and he seemed even more curious as to how or why I believed such scriptural beliefs and as he phrased it "[I] appear to be moderately intelligent". I jumped on the opportunity explain myself and the ensuing conversation went on for about an hour and half. Don't worry I am not writing to give a play by play recap of the conversation, I was just excited and I thought some lessons I noticed ought to be shared.
The first point I noticed and found interesting was the description of myself at least appearing to be "moderately intelligent". Being that we had never had any real discussion of meaning prior I took that as a good thing. I try to come across as an intelligent person as much as I do a man of faith. In the current world such a stance is often seen as incompatible. To present myself as an intelligent man of faith often catches people off guard. Once intrigued, we get in conversations that cover a plethora of hot topics. Do I ever try to explain someone the Gospel and see if they want to become a Christian? Usually not, by the time we finish the conversation there has been so much discussed, that the information just needs to be absorbed. I do look forward to further encounters when such an opportunity would be appropriate.
I recall at Hume one of the speakers, Chris Brown, both "decision nights" the students remaining easily outnumbered those that had left the chapel in silence. On the first night, traditionally the night to introduce people to Christ, he did not present the Gospel. What hit me even more, I recall at the counselors meeting the following day he was responding to one of the objections from a church's counselor wanting to know why he didn't present the Gospel at that time and that he left them hanging. Chris' response was, where he had taken them emotionally he could've gotten them to pray to the Easter Bunny, and they would've. I had never seen such a powerful response from a message before, nor did I hear such care in how and when to present the Gospel. That night has left a constant reminder to me about when those moments present themselves. In the scheme of eternity what is more valuable, someone that will have a greater grasp of what it means to be a Christian, or someone that while emotionally open says a prayer?
Feb 7, 2007
Feb 6, 2007
Putting Evangelism Back in Evangelical
Without trying to come up with something desperate the last month or so has been rather uneventful. I wanted to ensure when and what I write about is worth your time to read and give serious thought to. In one of my regular bible study groups we recently finished the Way of the Master series, a very interesting study but I found extremely useful because I did not agree with ample portions of the material. I also had a very stimulating and possibly a seed planting conversation last night.
The Way of the Master series is designed to show us simply how to introduce people to Christ. The primary audience in the style presented by example were random people they met in various places, be it the beach, mall or sidewalk. From the beginning of the study I had reservations about how simply they presented sharing the Gospel. As the weeks went on it would build how to answer certain reservations or having on-the-spot rebuttals to what people had to say. The gist of the technique was "Do you consider yourself a good person", "Have you ever ____ (go through the Ten Commandments)", "Since you have admitted to ______, do you think you will get into heaven?" Then if appropriate present the Gospel to the person on the spot.
My initial reservations were the presentation of the Gospel in this form of evangelism was to be practiced on a street corner to get people to say a prayer and be sent on their way. I know that was not the goal, because as the leaders presented the message it was the Holy Spirit to work in them to get plugged into a Christian community after they make a commitment via the sinner's prayer. I have been to too many weeks at summer camp, weekend retreats, and choir tours to see a radical emotional change in a person's life at a powerful moment only to see them fall away spiritually within an unspecific span of time. Do I contest the validity of their faith or attempt to know if they truly are "saved" or not? No, that issue is between them and God. However, those who have prayed and had the emotional heart moving moments and then fall away are not living the Christian life as it was meant to be. I am frustrated that often the church will measure success by commitment cards or some other empirical method and not by how much the people lives are changed. I realize being able to quantify such results would be much more difficult. I wonder at times if I am so reserved about presenting the prayer of salvation because I think there is so much more than an emotional moving in the heart and a person repeating after what is lead in prayer.
I have this inclination that the idea of bringing people to Christ is so based from Romans 10:8-9 & 13, I already addressed some frustrations about how those passages seem to be frequently taken out of context in Semantics Or More. Another objection I have about the presentation of such a simplistic method of evangelism is the lack of personal care. As the weeks go on in the study you can quickly see how simply and 1-2-3 method of presentation is taught. In the recent years I think I have developed a good deal as a teacher. I am not satisfied with follow steps 1-3 to teach anything. The joy of discovering a concept is far too valuable than to hand someone a plate of Christ. Are the methods used in the study supported by scripture? Yes, one clear example is the Woman at the Well. So I cannot completely turn off their method as unscriptural or useless.
I tend to point out the Gospels as a whole as a counter example. The growing of the twelve that Jesus invested so much into shows to me that we ought to concentrate much more on discipleship. I am reminded of an analogy I heard at Hume concerning discipleship. If I were to personally evangelize to 1000 people per day it would take me 160 years to bring the world to Christ. On the other side if I spent 1 year discipling a person and the following year disciple another person, in addition to the person I discipled would disciple 1 person the following year, then the entire world would be reached in 20 years. What is more believable to actually bring a thousand people to Christ a day or discipling one person in a year?
My final objection to the methods presented was almost a constant apprehension to evangelizing to the intellect. Often it is mentioned to not let the person's objections to what may believe intellectually but continually speak to the heart and the conscience will speak for itself. Although I understand the reason for wanting to keep the conversation direct and to the point I found it profoundly unsatisfying, then on the study addressed how to reach atheists the method seemed particularly weak. Dave, one of the leaders of the study and a fellow fan of apologetics would remind me of how easy it is to get caught up discussing the particulars of creation vs evolution, the historicity of the Gospels, or the philosophy and miss the Gospels because the other topic gets so engaging. One of my prime joys of the intellectual discussions is it assists in seeing where their heart is as well as removes the smoke screen that "science" seems to pull of the majority of people I have encountered.
Enough of me providing my dissensions with the Way of the Master series, as a whole it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking bible study series I have encountered. You know how I like to discuss controversial material. The lesson plans were simple each week and in depth enough that we could have a deep conversation without being too general about an single topic. Throughout the series they were very scripture based, which is something one finds as not as often as you'd think for bible study lessons.
The most interesting part about the series is each week there would be a segment of either Ray or Kirk talking to a number of people using the methods they just taught about. I couldn't think of a better form of how to apply what was learned by actually showing us. To actually see the people's reactions and real answers on the spot more than proved the series validity. It was a huge reminder that people are not afraid to talk about their beliefs. I think that was one of the immediate results I have come away from so far. Granted I am not asking every person I encounter how they measure up to the 10 commandments but the fearlessness they showed was a true reminder how I can be more bold in my faith. What is the worst thing that could happen to invite someone to church or bible study? They say "no"...
The Way of the Master series is designed to show us simply how to introduce people to Christ. The primary audience in the style presented by example were random people they met in various places, be it the beach, mall or sidewalk. From the beginning of the study I had reservations about how simply they presented sharing the Gospel. As the weeks went on it would build how to answer certain reservations or having on-the-spot rebuttals to what people had to say. The gist of the technique was "Do you consider yourself a good person", "Have you ever ____ (go through the Ten Commandments)", "Since you have admitted to ______, do you think you will get into heaven?" Then if appropriate present the Gospel to the person on the spot.
My initial reservations were the presentation of the Gospel in this form of evangelism was to be practiced on a street corner to get people to say a prayer and be sent on their way. I know that was not the goal, because as the leaders presented the message it was the Holy Spirit to work in them to get plugged into a Christian community after they make a commitment via the sinner's prayer. I have been to too many weeks at summer camp, weekend retreats, and choir tours to see a radical emotional change in a person's life at a powerful moment only to see them fall away spiritually within an unspecific span of time. Do I contest the validity of their faith or attempt to know if they truly are "saved" or not? No, that issue is between them and God. However, those who have prayed and had the emotional heart moving moments and then fall away are not living the Christian life as it was meant to be. I am frustrated that often the church will measure success by commitment cards or some other empirical method and not by how much the people lives are changed. I realize being able to quantify such results would be much more difficult. I wonder at times if I am so reserved about presenting the prayer of salvation because I think there is so much more than an emotional moving in the heart and a person repeating after what is lead in prayer.
I have this inclination that the idea of bringing people to Christ is so based from Romans 10:8-9 & 13, I already addressed some frustrations about how those passages seem to be frequently taken out of context in Semantics Or More. Another objection I have about the presentation of such a simplistic method of evangelism is the lack of personal care. As the weeks go on in the study you can quickly see how simply and 1-2-3 method of presentation is taught. In the recent years I think I have developed a good deal as a teacher. I am not satisfied with follow steps 1-3 to teach anything. The joy of discovering a concept is far too valuable than to hand someone a plate of Christ. Are the methods used in the study supported by scripture? Yes, one clear example is the Woman at the Well. So I cannot completely turn off their method as unscriptural or useless.
I tend to point out the Gospels as a whole as a counter example. The growing of the twelve that Jesus invested so much into shows to me that we ought to concentrate much more on discipleship. I am reminded of an analogy I heard at Hume concerning discipleship. If I were to personally evangelize to 1000 people per day it would take me 160 years to bring the world to Christ. On the other side if I spent 1 year discipling a person and the following year disciple another person, in addition to the person I discipled would disciple 1 person the following year, then the entire world would be reached in 20 years. What is more believable to actually bring a thousand people to Christ a day or discipling one person in a year?
My final objection to the methods presented was almost a constant apprehension to evangelizing to the intellect. Often it is mentioned to not let the person's objections to what may believe intellectually but continually speak to the heart and the conscience will speak for itself. Although I understand the reason for wanting to keep the conversation direct and to the point I found it profoundly unsatisfying, then on the study addressed how to reach atheists the method seemed particularly weak. Dave, one of the leaders of the study and a fellow fan of apologetics would remind me of how easy it is to get caught up discussing the particulars of creation vs evolution, the historicity of the Gospels, or the philosophy and miss the Gospels because the other topic gets so engaging. One of my prime joys of the intellectual discussions is it assists in seeing where their heart is as well as removes the smoke screen that "science" seems to pull of the majority of people I have encountered.
Enough of me providing my dissensions with the Way of the Master series, as a whole it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking bible study series I have encountered. You know how I like to discuss controversial material. The lesson plans were simple each week and in depth enough that we could have a deep conversation without being too general about an single topic. Throughout the series they were very scripture based, which is something one finds as not as often as you'd think for bible study lessons.
The most interesting part about the series is each week there would be a segment of either Ray or Kirk talking to a number of people using the methods they just taught about. I couldn't think of a better form of how to apply what was learned by actually showing us. To actually see the people's reactions and real answers on the spot more than proved the series validity. It was a huge reminder that people are not afraid to talk about their beliefs. I think that was one of the immediate results I have come away from so far. Granted I am not asking every person I encounter how they measure up to the 10 commandments but the fearlessness they showed was a true reminder how I can be more bold in my faith. What is the worst thing that could happen to invite someone to church or bible study? They say "no"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)