Stan Smith makes a new best friend -- only to find out that he's an atheist. Stan's solution is to destroy his life so that in the subsequent emotional crisis, the friend will become a Christian and will go to heaven when he dies.
[Video Link]
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
The UMC Mission in Second Life
Our group of church planters in Second Life is making substantial progress at building a mission there. We're getting very close to formally incorporating, setting up a board of directors, and starting a bank account under the auspices of the North Georgia Annual Conference. There will be an IRL meeting next week in Atlanta to discuss these plans. If you're in the Atlanta area and want to attend, let me know and I'll hook you up.Meanwhile, you can keep track of our progress on the blog Second Life Methodist.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
The UM Mission in Second Life
Last week, a group of United Methodists met in Second Life to talk about the proposed church plant in SL. Theresa and Gavin were there. Apparently there is real support in the North Georgia Annual Conference and the Tennessee Annual Conference to move forward. Keep this evangelistic mission to Second Life in your prayers.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Taking Off Your Christian Blinders
I think that I am at an advantage in ministering to a post-Christian society in that I became a Christian as an adult, and so I can readily think like a secular person. It's fairly easy for me to spot Christian presuppositions in evangelical efforts that are not self-evident to the secular person. Victor Reppert writes:
I have taught in both a Christian setting and a non-Christian setting, but most of my student career and my teaching career has been in secular institutions. I often find that in a non-Christian setting students seem unaware of the fact that they have a world-view, or else they haven’t really thought very clearly about what their world-view is and how to make it a consistent one. So you find people drawing from one source here and one source there whenever it suits them. In a Christian setting you will still find some of that as well. But the main issue that I believe I should try to come to terms with in dealing with Christian students is the fact that they have learned certain ways of talking about what they believe which are common in churches but have little meaning to anyone outside of four walls of the institutional church. One church outsider came to a church and was asked “Are you under the blood?” which prompted him to look up at the ceiling to see if there was some red liquid coming down. Consider even a phrase like “Christ paid the penalty for our sins.” What penalty? What sins? And how could Christ pay it, if we incurred the penalty?
Missionaries often spend years studying the peoples of the countries in which they minister, hoping to understand the thought-forms of those peoples, so that they can learn to present the Christian message in a way that is meaningful to the people of that culture. Yet, I think, a lot of Christians have no idea how their world-view differs from the world-views of others, or how to ask the questions a non-believer would ask.
If Christians want to be effective evangelists -- or even effective thinkers -- they must engage in depth points of view other than their own.
HT: Jollyblogger
I have taught in both a Christian setting and a non-Christian setting, but most of my student career and my teaching career has been in secular institutions. I often find that in a non-Christian setting students seem unaware of the fact that they have a world-view, or else they haven’t really thought very clearly about what their world-view is and how to make it a consistent one. So you find people drawing from one source here and one source there whenever it suits them. In a Christian setting you will still find some of that as well. But the main issue that I believe I should try to come to terms with in dealing with Christian students is the fact that they have learned certain ways of talking about what they believe which are common in churches but have little meaning to anyone outside of four walls of the institutional church. One church outsider came to a church and was asked “Are you under the blood?” which prompted him to look up at the ceiling to see if there was some red liquid coming down. Consider even a phrase like “Christ paid the penalty for our sins.” What penalty? What sins? And how could Christ pay it, if we incurred the penalty?
Missionaries often spend years studying the peoples of the countries in which they minister, hoping to understand the thought-forms of those peoples, so that they can learn to present the Christian message in a way that is meaningful to the people of that culture. Yet, I think, a lot of Christians have no idea how their world-view differs from the world-views of others, or how to ask the questions a non-believer would ask.
If Christians want to be effective evangelists -- or even effective thinkers -- they must engage in depth points of view other than their own.
HT: Jollyblogger
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Evangelism vs. Mission as the Primary Purpose of the Church
In our recent discussion about how to improve seminary training, regular commentor Earl responded:
Students would be required to examine the efforts and results of churches within their area as well as high profile churches that are recognized leaders in evangelism. Students would be required to interview area pastors who have demonstrated personal effectiveness in winning adults to Christ. Subsequent to these examinations and interviews students would be required to evaluate and then develop and present in a peer setting their personal understanding of evangelism not simply as a concept but as a central objective for ministry and their proposed plan for implementing an effective plan of evangelism in their local church setting.
Students would be required to demonstrate personal experience in winning adults to faith in Christ. Not a punch list of book read or sitting in classes or taking test but actual personal experience. Not working at a shelter or going on a mission trip but personal involvement in presenting the Gospel to adults in such a way that decisions are made for Christ. Evaluation would be based on the number of times a genuine attempt was made to present the Gospel as well as the number of times such a presentation was successful. Regardless of result, in each case the student would be required to do what would constitute a "after action report," in which he/she would evaluate the actual/possible factors that lead to success or failure in presenting the Gospel. This would be reviewed by fellow students in a small group setting. Regardless of any other accomplishments, success in this regard would be absolutely prerequisite to graduation.
Why this emphasis on evangelism? Because there are few if any task that a minister can do that can not be done with equal quality and integrity by a worker in a social service agency. But there is no social service agency charged with the responsibility of reaching people for Christ. Jesus did not found the Church as a social service agency. He fundamentally tasked the Church to reach, teach, win and develop men and women for Christ. Everything else is entirely related to that central imperative.
Will of Ramblings from a Red Rose has an excellent critique of this view. I enthusiastically agree with all five of Will's points.
I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that Earl and I have very different presuppositions about evangelism and possibly even salvation. He appears to be advocating "propositional evangelism", where a Christian verbally confronts a non-Christian with the basic outline of Christian theology and awaits a verbal decision to accept or reject these theological propositions as true or false. Those who accept the propositions as true are now classed as "saved" and those who reject them retain the classification of "unsaved".
The problem for the Church in the West is not that people have not heard the Christian message; it is that the Church lacks credibility. As the Apostle James said:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
Simply 'presenting' the Gospel message is not enough if it amounts to nothing more than empty words, as The Onion deliciously lampooned a while back.
And for this same reason, I reject Earl's distinction between evangelism and 'social service' work. What is more persuasive, a Christian who gives a starving man a tract, or a Christian who gives a starving man a meal? The latter shows out of his/her loving actions that the transformation of God's grace is more than just a switching of invisible soteriological categories; s/he shows his/her love by how s/he lives.
If the Church wishes to spread the Gospel, then it must be credible to a justifiably skeptical world. And if it wishes to be credible, then it must, as the Body of Christ, bring peace where there is conflict, healing where there are wounds, and abundance where there is poverty.*
I also disagree with Earl's position that evangelism is the primary task of the minister, and is not the primary task of other Christians:
Why this emphasis on evangelism? Because there are few if any task that a minister can do that can not be done with equal quality and integrity by a worker in a social service agency. But there is no social service agency charged with the responsibility of reaching people for Christ. Jesus did not found the Church as a social service agency. He fundamentally tasked the Church to reach, teach, win and develop men and women for Christ. Everything else is entirely related to that central imperative.
In his critique, Will notes the common complaint of pastors, "As a minister, I live in the church ghetto. I don’t come across many non-Christians." Ain't it the truth! I have to be very intentional about meeting non-Christians. If it weren't for my gym membership and the blogosphere, on most days, I'd never meet a non-Christian. That's because my workplace is the Church.
Most lay Christians can't claim that. Most are far more enmeshed in the non-Christian world than clergy, and are therefore best able to be a Christian witness to non-Christians.
At any rate, the Great Commission wasn't given to ordained clergy. It was given to the disciples. Evangelism is the job of every believer, not just clergy. But I am interested in understanding how Earl concludes otherwise.
*I would further note that we, the Church, should not do 'social service' work merely as an opening for propositional evangelism. We should not help people who are hurting just because we want them to experience a formal conversion. The Church should alleviate pain and suffering wherever they are found just because it's the right thing to do.
Students would be required to examine the efforts and results of churches within their area as well as high profile churches that are recognized leaders in evangelism. Students would be required to interview area pastors who have demonstrated personal effectiveness in winning adults to Christ. Subsequent to these examinations and interviews students would be required to evaluate and then develop and present in a peer setting their personal understanding of evangelism not simply as a concept but as a central objective for ministry and their proposed plan for implementing an effective plan of evangelism in their local church setting.
Students would be required to demonstrate personal experience in winning adults to faith in Christ. Not a punch list of book read or sitting in classes or taking test but actual personal experience. Not working at a shelter or going on a mission trip but personal involvement in presenting the Gospel to adults in such a way that decisions are made for Christ. Evaluation would be based on the number of times a genuine attempt was made to present the Gospel as well as the number of times such a presentation was successful. Regardless of result, in each case the student would be required to do what would constitute a "after action report," in which he/she would evaluate the actual/possible factors that lead to success or failure in presenting the Gospel. This would be reviewed by fellow students in a small group setting. Regardless of any other accomplishments, success in this regard would be absolutely prerequisite to graduation.
Why this emphasis on evangelism? Because there are few if any task that a minister can do that can not be done with equal quality and integrity by a worker in a social service agency. But there is no social service agency charged with the responsibility of reaching people for Christ. Jesus did not found the Church as a social service agency. He fundamentally tasked the Church to reach, teach, win and develop men and women for Christ. Everything else is entirely related to that central imperative.
Will of Ramblings from a Red Rose has an excellent critique of this view. I enthusiastically agree with all five of Will's points.
I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that Earl and I have very different presuppositions about evangelism and possibly even salvation. He appears to be advocating "propositional evangelism", where a Christian verbally confronts a non-Christian with the basic outline of Christian theology and awaits a verbal decision to accept or reject these theological propositions as true or false. Those who accept the propositions as true are now classed as "saved" and those who reject them retain the classification of "unsaved".
The problem for the Church in the West is not that people have not heard the Christian message; it is that the Church lacks credibility. As the Apostle James said:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
Simply 'presenting' the Gospel message is not enough if it amounts to nothing more than empty words, as The Onion deliciously lampooned a while back.
And for this same reason, I reject Earl's distinction between evangelism and 'social service' work. What is more persuasive, a Christian who gives a starving man a tract, or a Christian who gives a starving man a meal? The latter shows out of his/her loving actions that the transformation of God's grace is more than just a switching of invisible soteriological categories; s/he shows his/her love by how s/he lives.
If the Church wishes to spread the Gospel, then it must be credible to a justifiably skeptical world. And if it wishes to be credible, then it must, as the Body of Christ, bring peace where there is conflict, healing where there are wounds, and abundance where there is poverty.*
I also disagree with Earl's position that evangelism is the primary task of the minister, and is not the primary task of other Christians:
Why this emphasis on evangelism? Because there are few if any task that a minister can do that can not be done with equal quality and integrity by a worker in a social service agency. But there is no social service agency charged with the responsibility of reaching people for Christ. Jesus did not found the Church as a social service agency. He fundamentally tasked the Church to reach, teach, win and develop men and women for Christ. Everything else is entirely related to that central imperative.
In his critique, Will notes the common complaint of pastors, "As a minister, I live in the church ghetto. I don’t come across many non-Christians." Ain't it the truth! I have to be very intentional about meeting non-Christians. If it weren't for my gym membership and the blogosphere, on most days, I'd never meet a non-Christian. That's because my workplace is the Church.
Most lay Christians can't claim that. Most are far more enmeshed in the non-Christian world than clergy, and are therefore best able to be a Christian witness to non-Christians.
At any rate, the Great Commission wasn't given to ordained clergy. It was given to the disciples. Evangelism is the job of every believer, not just clergy. But I am interested in understanding how Earl concludes otherwise.
*I would further note that we, the Church, should not do 'social service' work merely as an opening for propositional evangelism. We should not help people who are hurting just because we want them to experience a formal conversion. The Church should alleviate pain and suffering wherever they are found just because it's the right thing to do.
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Entertainment-Driven Church
C. Michael Patton visited a glitzy megachurch and wrote about church growth techniques that focus on seducing people with consumer products and entertainment:
The biggest fear that I have is that this is representative of so many well meaning people who start churches. I imagine the person who started this particular church grew up in a very boring church and set it as his primary goal to someday have a church that was fun. That is nice, but, more often than not, totally destructive. The pews are filled with people who are weak and totally unestablished in the faith. Most really don’t know what the Christian message is outside of “Jesus loves you and wants you to have a wonderful life.” Many claim Jesus, serve Him, and lift up their hands in praise, but what happens when someone or something challenges their faith? Where are they going to turn? To the shallowness of the entertaining commercials or out of context self-help lessons? Where will they go when the foundations are destroyed?
A faith that prepares us only to receive good things in life and not the cross is not even contemplating spiritual maturity. Michael Spencer reflected on Patton's post and fortold:
The is “the end” of evangelicalism, and it’s not dying with a whimper. Oh no. It’s going out with party hats and noise-makers. And Bratz dolls. And Barbie. And video games. And an elf. And the Word-faith message. And Starbucks.
The end of evangelicalism isn’t the deep vacuum of space. It’s the Borg ship. With pizza, a band and great commercials.
Is this Christianity? If you realize you answer no longer has any basis in reality, consider just being honest: No, it’s not.
Are the living dead in a George Romero movie “people?”
HT: Thinklings
The biggest fear that I have is that this is representative of so many well meaning people who start churches. I imagine the person who started this particular church grew up in a very boring church and set it as his primary goal to someday have a church that was fun. That is nice, but, more often than not, totally destructive. The pews are filled with people who are weak and totally unestablished in the faith. Most really don’t know what the Christian message is outside of “Jesus loves you and wants you to have a wonderful life.” Many claim Jesus, serve Him, and lift up their hands in praise, but what happens when someone or something challenges their faith? Where are they going to turn? To the shallowness of the entertaining commercials or out of context self-help lessons? Where will they go when the foundations are destroyed?
A faith that prepares us only to receive good things in life and not the cross is not even contemplating spiritual maturity. Michael Spencer reflected on Patton's post and fortold:
The is “the end” of evangelicalism, and it’s not dying with a whimper. Oh no. It’s going out with party hats and noise-makers. And Bratz dolls. And Barbie. And video games. And an elf. And the Word-faith message. And Starbucks.
The end of evangelicalism isn’t the deep vacuum of space. It’s the Borg ship. With pizza, a band and great commercials.
Is this Christianity? If you realize you answer no longer has any basis in reality, consider just being honest: No, it’s not.
Are the living dead in a George Romero movie “people?”
HT: Thinklings
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Why Do Muslims Convert to Christianity?
An interesting article from Christianity Today, based upon a study conducted by Fuller Seminary.
Hat tip: J.D.
Hat tip: J.D.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Comparing John Wesley and Rick Warren
Rick Warren is often criticized for excessive evangelistic zeal. Which is a really strange thing to criticize someone about. Anyway, Michael Spencer defends Warren and compares his evangelistic fervor with that of John Wesley:
At this point, I can say everyone needs to find and read every word written by Iain Murray on John Wesley, particularly on what everyone can learn from the early Methodists about evangelistic zeal.
You see, Murray acknowledges that Wesley had some theological problems, but for some odd reason, Murray hasn’t gotten the memo that any theological error at all disqualifies what you do in evangelism from being commendable.
The seeker model isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in many ways, and I am not a fan of much of what has been done with it. But I do believe that if we look closely at those men- across the spectrum- who have an evangelistic zeal that overflows into what their church says and does- you’ll find that it’s the same Holy Spirit, calling people to Christ, energizing Christians to love and take risks for Jesus sake and for the lost.
At this point, I can say everyone needs to find and read every word written by Iain Murray on John Wesley, particularly on what everyone can learn from the early Methodists about evangelistic zeal.
You see, Murray acknowledges that Wesley had some theological problems, but for some odd reason, Murray hasn’t gotten the memo that any theological error at all disqualifies what you do in evangelism from being commendable.
The seeker model isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in many ways, and I am not a fan of much of what has been done with it. But I do believe that if we look closely at those men- across the spectrum- who have an evangelistic zeal that overflows into what their church says and does- you’ll find that it’s the same Holy Spirit, calling people to Christ, energizing Christians to love and take risks for Jesus sake and for the lost.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Descendants of Cannibals Apologize for Eating Methodist Missionaries
They decided to eat some humble pie.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Virtual Evangelism
Jesuit missionaries are now active in the virtual realm of Second Life. I'm not sure what to think about this. For one thing, I'm too tired to think straight. For another...well, actually, that's about it.
Hat tip to Ace, who asks "Can you offer salvation to that which has no life?" Heh.
Hat tip to Ace, who asks "Can you offer salvation to that which has no life?" Heh.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Refresh '07 -- A Call for Revival in Campus Ministry
Brian Russell urges us to examine Refresh '07, an upcoming convention about campus evangelism. It's being held by the Foundation for Evangelism, one of the great sources for revival in the UMC -- and the generous source of funding for the January Methodist bloggers meetup.
Brian himself will teach one of the seminars, which is very wise choice by the Foundation. He's been one of the great instigators of change in my ecclesiology, and is a fountain of missional passion.
[cross-posted]
Brian himself will teach one of the seminars, which is very wise choice by the Foundation. He's been one of the great instigators of change in my ecclesiology, and is a fountain of missional passion.
[cross-posted]
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Antagonistic Evangelism
Michael Spencer recently read I'm Okay -- And You're Not by John Shore and reviewed it:
In Shore’s opinion, American evangelicals have saturated our culture with the facts of the Gospel to the point that non-Christians are often filled with astounded dread that we keep telling them Jesus died for their sins and they must believe the Gospel to be saved. If that is the case, then Christians need to stop being annoyingly repetitive communicators (i.e. pressure sales, manipulation, rudeness, etc.) and start showing love, respect, concern, friendship and compassion to the non-Christians (”Normies”) they know.
[snip]
Shore ends each chapter with sets of extended comments from unbelievers on what they want to say to Christians. Shore calls these sections “Ouch,” and that’s what they are. These unbelievers are articulate, thoughtful and way out in front of many Christians on the subject of love, respect and dialog.
Shore appeals to Christians to ponder the nature of love, the importance of honest and mature Christian character and how relationships with non-Christians really look. Shore speaks so much common sense, and skips so much Christian-ese and predictable rhetoric that some Christians will be offended immediately. Younger, thoughtful, humble Christians who know something is very wrong will find Shore saying exactly what they’ve been thinking.
It sounds like an interesting book.
In Shore’s opinion, American evangelicals have saturated our culture with the facts of the Gospel to the point that non-Christians are often filled with astounded dread that we keep telling them Jesus died for their sins and they must believe the Gospel to be saved. If that is the case, then Christians need to stop being annoyingly repetitive communicators (i.e. pressure sales, manipulation, rudeness, etc.) and start showing love, respect, concern, friendship and compassion to the non-Christians (”Normies”) they know.
[snip]
Shore ends each chapter with sets of extended comments from unbelievers on what they want to say to Christians. Shore calls these sections “Ouch,” and that’s what they are. These unbelievers are articulate, thoughtful and way out in front of many Christians on the subject of love, respect and dialog.
Shore appeals to Christians to ponder the nature of love, the importance of honest and mature Christian character and how relationships with non-Christians really look. Shore speaks so much common sense, and skips so much Christian-ese and predictable rhetoric that some Christians will be offended immediately. Younger, thoughtful, humble Christians who know something is very wrong will find Shore saying exactly what they’ve been thinking.
It sounds like an interesting book.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Mark Winter's Simeon's Dream
At the Congress on Evangelism, Mark Winter, the General Evangelist for the Central Texas Conference gave me a video of one of his stage productions: Simeon's Dream. This one-person play is based on Luke 2:25-35, in which Mary, Joseph, and the infant Jesus encounter the holy man Simeon. I finally got around to watching it last night, and it was amazing! Mark is a gifted actor who conveyed the OT prophetic call about Jesus, fulfilled before his eyes in the baby Jesus. Mark concluded his monologue with an evangelistic calling.It was an outstanding production: highly realistic and expressed with detailed precision in accent, mannerism, and intonation. If your church is trying to think outside of the box about how to summon people to redemption in Christ, Mark Winter's Simeon's Dream might be just the ideal means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
