Still more thoughts on evangelism...

Here is the second installment on the topic of evangelism.

Let me repeat what I said a few days ago and say that I believe in evangelism wholeheartedly, in salvation by grace through faith, and that we each have a responsibility to fulfill the great commission. I just have a problem with some of our methods, goals, and various expectations with regards to "winning souls."

To put it plainly, we inadvertently end up hurting the cause more than helping it. We are very good at being irrelevant in the name of Christianity. (My friend Jason has a lot to say on the subject here for just one example.) But aside from that, the environment has changed quite a lot during this past few years. The truth of the gospel will always be relevent - only Jesus can set us free from the bondage of sin and death. In general though, our society is less open to the message.

For one thing, the idea of "sin" is a foreign concept to many people on the street. We christians have successfully branded ourselves as the "can't do" crowd. Try this one on the average christian you may run into - ask them to define "sin" and then listen to them. Chances are you will get a list of "bad" behaviors we as "christians" aren't "allowed" to engage in. Go ahead - I dare you! What are we modeling to the world out there? Is this freedom from sin?

On the contrary, victory over sin should mean that theres a whole lot of things out there that just don't satisfy the longing in my heart - I know, cause now I'm not empty any more.

But, back to the point - sin no longer exists in our society as far as the average person is concerned. We do what we feel like as long as nobody gets hurt (and if they do, hey that's the way it goes.) So, if there is no sin, why do we need a savior? Salvation - from what? And don't even talk about a literal heaven or hell!

Maybe what I'm ranting about here is the fact that we have allowed the media and our politicians to define christianity for our society. They have managed to turn us into nothing more than another "voting block" or subculture. We just need to be acknowledged and satisfied come the nearest election cycle. We'll shut up and play nice as long as somebody throws us a bone once in awhile. (Hows that for a few mixed metaphors! This blogging stuff is real hard - it's almost like rocket surgery...) Once the news cycle is over, we again become irrelevant.

How are we viewed by society at large? What do they see in us? Are we angry like Fred Phelps? Perhaps they see the glitz and glamour of the TV evangelists, or the gaudiness of the Prosperity Gospel megaghurches. Do we christians appear to be naieve and sheltered like Ned Flanders? Maybe we're hypocrites in their eyes and they view us in the same vein as Ted Haggard or the late Tammy Faye?

While I don't wish to validate these stereotypes, wouldn't you agree that we have done our part to perpetuate these classic misconceptions?

So what does this have to do with evangelism? I'm so glad you asked. The point is that WE (and our methods) need to adapt to this phenomenon. For the most part, people out there want to at least appear to be "open-minded" - in fact they consider us to be exclusive, intolerant and "closed-minded". What people are looking for (believe me - they are looking for something) - what people are Screaming for - is community! We want to belong. We crave relationships. We long for authentic friendships.

This is in stark contrast to how we often treat people we are "witnessing" to. We can't treat our "friends" as nothing more than conversion "prospects." I have met many people who have expressed that they felt a christian had befriended them just to get them to join their church, or come to a play or some other "evangelistic" event. How would you feel if you knew that your new friend wasn't really interested in you as a friend - but a number, or a "scalp?" But the organized church has encouraged this sort of befriending by running campaigns, crusades and contests - I've taken part in it myself in days past.

I do believe we have the answer to makind's delimma. The world is dying of thirst, and we have the water (wasn't that a bit cliche) - but it's true! We just spend too much time trying to make the water more palatable. (It doesn't need it!) We repackage it, buff it, shine it and have contests to see how many people want it - without really giving it to them. That's my beef. More to come - I promise.

Thoughts on Evangelism...sort of...er, I guess...

This is the first in what will I am sure become a controversial topic on my otherwise bland blogspace. I blame this entry on the fact that it is currently too bloody cold to give you one of my usual manly fishing reports. Here goes – you’ve been forewarned.

I have never been one to stand on a street corner, or even openly “witness” as many other “Evangelists” I know do routinely. I wholeheartedly subscribe that it is our duty as Christ’s followers to fulfill the great commission and make disciples. However, I don’t always agree with current methodology, or many of the current measures of “success” that we evangelicals have put forth. At the risk of sounding downright cynical, (or liberal), I think we have really missed the point.

The apostle Paul certainly “persuaded” many (though usually in the context of a public forum) and none would argue that he achieved what we would consider “enviable results.” When he was intentionally un-persuasive, God confirmed his message through signs and wonders (c.f. 1 Cor.) However, I seriously doubt that the author of the very “Roman” road that we are taught in our evangelism 101 classes ever resorted to such canned methods. So what is the point? (I thought you’d never ask!)

Lately I have found myself questioning “our” (I mean the conservative evangelical community that we narrowly call the “church”) – I’ve been questioning “our”, definition of being “saved”, “getting saved” and the notion of the “salvation” experience as we currently accept it.

Before you freak out let me assure you that I am a firm believer in true, instantaneous “conversion” – salvation, by grace, through faith- I am in EVERY way an orthodox, evangelical Christian. However, I believe that our methods often fall short of this true conversion in my opinion.

We can all site myriad examples of people who “witness” 24-7, 365 and are very confrontational everywhere they go. While at the grocery check-out they ask – “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?” Now, don’t get me wrong – I have always admired those who are so bold – but I don’t often see the fruit. On the contrary, in my journeys I have often (too many times to count!) had to clean up after these proverbial ‘bulls’ in the china shop. I have also witnessed what I would call “true” conversion during such clean-up efforts because I took the time to be real with folks.

My beef with the whole process is in how we define success. Too often while “witnessing” or “soul-winning” (my favorite term to make fun of) the goal is to simply win an argument – an unsolicited argument at that, on the part of the intended “soul” being “won”. If the argument is “won” and the soul in question assents, then you get to pray, the “sinners” prayer and “viola” - success, you now have a baby Christian on your hands. On to the next victim.

In church settings the goal is to get ‘em down front. That is “success” in our world. The question then is, How shall we then live? Isn’t there more to this life than praying the sinners’ prayer or going down front?

There will be more on this subject soon – if you don’t all string me up first. Bye for now…

I hope next time to define what success ought to be - here's a hint - there's something called "community" involved.