Sunday, January 27, 2008

biblical evangelism

I am currently processing some small group material I was given by my church. We are beginning a series call "Consumed" in which we will analyze the many things that tend to consume us rather than our passion for Christ. The concept sounds great but the content (created by one of larger churches here in Cincinnati) is weak at best - and I think I am being kind with that. Of the three lesson plans I read, only one referenced any Scripture and that did not discuss the Scripture but rather used it as a backdrop to ask a couple of simple questions regarding our perception of the events of our week.

Anyway, in contrast I read Mike Ratliff's post on The Keys to Biblical Evangelism - wonderful. Through what Ratliff wrote I am reminded that we have access to the power of God and His Holy Word - and then I wonder why do we stoop to something less?

As a side note - my only issue with Ratliff's post is his perception that the seeker-sensitive form of evangelism is totally numbers or results based, and, therefore, uses methodologies to boost perceived effectiveness by increased numbers of “decisions for Christ.” That is not 100% consistent with my experience which is that they simply want to eliminate all stumbling blocks other than the cross of Christ. But I suppose as with any "movement" there are a range of expressions and he could be correct in his assessment of the majority.

As a side side note - I find it interesting that many so-called evangelicals (I am not speaking of Ratliff) will cite "signs and wonders" or traditional Charismatic behavior is distracting, etc. and then criticize those that are seeker-sensitive. Hmmm ...

But now back to the topic ... we really need to stop dumbing down the Gospel. God doesn't want or need our help in that way. More than coincidental, I also read Michael Patton's THE ENTERTAINMENT DRIVEN CHURCH this morning in which he describes his experiences exploring other churches in his area. I read his summary of the ugly with interest.
The sad fact is that there was no educational program for people to grow deep in the faith. There were plenty of opportunities for service, outreach to the community, and fellowship, but nothing that helped these people understand the why of what they are doing. I don’t necessarily expect these type of churches to do church the exact way that I would tell them, but at least have as one of the involvement suggestions a program of theological discipleship or doctrine to encourage people to know the God they are serving.

These people had no connection to the past whatsoever. They would have no idea about the history of the church outside of the history of their local gathering. What are they connected to? What makes them think that they are qualified to bring in all these visitors? Don’t they feel the least bit of a need to have a heritage? Are they not accountable to anyone past or present?

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?

It is this type of context that gives unfortunate illustrations to books like Ruth Tucker’s Walking Away From the Faith. “I was a Christian who used to go to church every week, served on the welcoming team for years, lifted my hands in worship, went to other countries and built churches, but I came to find out that it was all false.” Really? What I want to know is did you ever find out that it was really true in the first place.

I could go on but this experience has confirmed to me the desperate shape that the modern church is in and the need that we have for theological renewal. When things get tough (and they will), who will people turn to when the entrainment, laughter, and fun will serve no purpose. May God grant us a mindset to give people their true needs, not their felt needs.

Truth first, mission second, fellowship third, and if there is any room, throw in some entertainment.

This "ugly" can be found in any movement. Shallowness as we replace the Gospel with programs. We have a wrong-headed idea of evangelism, fellowship, etc. and it leads us to a place that denies that power of God and ultimately leads people to destruction. I frankly think that our intention as we do this sort of thing is good but the fact is that in our own lives we lack the power of God and therefore we grasp anything we can as we try to go about His work in our own power - and I do not think any of us are immune. It's a trap we should all be wary of.

Have a good Sunday.

Technorati Tags:

2 comments:

David Rudd said...

good post rick. i wonder, though, if the quote from Patton doesn't create an unnecessary problem.

i would ask if "education" can happen without a specific educational program? can education happen through "service, outreach to the community, and fellowship"?

i see Jesus leading the disciples to serve, to reach out, and to fellowship. i don't see him working through a curriculum.

maybe i misunderstand?

ricki said...

david - good observation. I personally see that discipleship comes in the "doing" but that is because in the doing we also properly articulate the what's and the why's. I prefer getting out there, doin' the stuff, and providing instruction before, during, and after the process.

reftagger