Perhaps it illustrates the whole idea that if the gospel is the power of God for salvation, we should just pray and do what works, recognizing that God will use whatever he wants (the power of the community, arguments from reason, chance encounters, every day circumstances, whatever...) to respond to the prayers of people who want to see evangelism happen.
hi again Gordon
2 responses
1. it seems to me that you are an evangelist of sorts and that not everone seems to have these conversations like you just recounted. its great that you have them (as I seem to as well) but the question steve raised is to do with whether the scriptures give us a normative pattern of mission and evangelism.
In relation to your earlier comments on 1 thes, it seems to me that Paul brings the gospel word and gospel living (in that instance the apostolic band who came to Thes) into a distinct yet integrated activity - hence he shares not only the gospel but their life as well as part of the apostolic mission to Thes. That seems more normative than anecdotal Taxi ride conversations ;)
2. Sovereign Grace and providence amen! amen amen
but should we just pray and do what works?
my fear is that people like you and me - who seem so keen to be biblical and reformed and evangelical and ‘uber sola’ - may easily fall into unprincipalled pragmatism or inconsistent pragmatism in these matters. Is the gospel community just one among many means, like a 7 iron instead of a sandwedge?
call me a fundy but I am not so comfotable with that. Our pragmatism is incredibly dangerous wthout these conversations maybe?
Here’s an interesting article based on research about reaching the ‘unchurched’ :
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27891
unchurched less likely to come to church
Apr 23, 2008 by Mark Kelly ( Baptist Press )
Unchurched adults interested in finding a congregation aren’t nearly as likely to visit one in person as a church member who is shopping for a new congregation, according to several recent LifeWay Research studies. Effective evangelism, the researchers say, must begin in relationships between Christians and unbelievers -– beyond church buildings............
this again taps into the attractional vs missional debate.
I think it has been helpfully suggested that the scriptures do speak about churches being attractive but their attraction has to do with the gospel being lived out in community as God’s salt and light people.
Yet so often when we work hard on making churches more attractiver to so called ‘outsiders’ - as this article suggests - we usually only attract christians who are church shopping or ‘unhooked’ christians.
and so we pragmatically start searching for the ‘successful’ formula of attraction.
the right kinda buildings to house the right kinda programs and provide platforms for the right kinda preachers. we work harder and harder at creating an ‘attractional centre’ , bigger better sexier than last week and bigger better sexier than the church in the next suburb.
good things happen, people grow, the odd one gets saved or we convince them that the church they were previously in wasn’t a ‘gospel church’ and that this is really their first real church.
the indicies of buildings bodies and budgets all look good yet in the underbelly we see burnout, profressionalisation of ministry, homogenisation of fellowships and ghetto Christians who freak out if their kids best freind has two mommies.
we end up just reheating and refryiing chriistians whilst we slip further and further into the oblivion of post christian culture.
the article you refer to is just another reminder than christendom is over and so are we unless we find new models for reaching pagan sydney.
2. Sovereign Grace and providence amen! amen amen
but should we just pray and do what works?
my fear is that people like you and me - who seem so keen to be biblical and reformed and evangelical and ‘uber sola’ - may easily fall into unprincipalled pragmatism or inconsistent pragmatism in these matters. Is the gospel community just one among many means, like a 7 iron instead of a sandwedge?
call me a fundy but I am not so comfotable with that. Our pragmatism is incredibly dangerous wthout these conversations maybe?
Despite appearances, Shane, I am completely committed to pragmatism! At least, where the Bible allows it, and within grace there is a great deal of room for movement. (2 Cor 4:1-6 sets a boundary, possibly the only non-negotiable boundary, on our pragmatism in the matter of evangelism)
No, the gospel community is not just one among many means, any more than ‘logical argument’ is one among many means. Gospel community is an end in itself, produced by the word, so could never be dispensed with as something not suitable to the circumstances (like the seven iron of your illustration). You have to be in community in the same way that you have to love, or you haven’t understood the gospel.
But as far as evangelism goes, it doesn’t carry with it the same sacrosanct quality. What I mean is, people are allowed to become Christians without even having met a Christian—for example people converted through radio stations like HCJB, or who pick up a Bible and start reading out of curiosity (don’t worry, I know you believe this!).
If God chooses to use the community of believers to accelerate someone’s understanding of his word, then that is wonderful, but I don’t see that he is bound to, even if it is his normal way in today’s evangelistic climate. For example, most of the major conversions (both numerically, and as far as the author’s interest go) in the book of Acts occur without the community— usually because the community didn’t even exist yet in the evangelism that is described!
For sure Gordo, and I fully respect diversity here. The reason the “gospel community” method is being highlighted, I think, is that it hasn’t really been given a lot of explicit air time previously. And also, as you say, the community has to come into play at some point, even if it is someone converted through a radio program showing up on the church doorstep suddenly.
But two other things about this “model” (maybe an unhelpful phrase) appeal to me. Firstly, I’ve seen it work quite often recently at my own church, so that makes it interesting. Secondly, it involves the whole community, the whole body, in the evangelistic process.
My own experience and reason tell me that only a minority of Christians have the ability to go out and get to the point where they can take their workmates and family through “2 Ways To Live” (for example). But something that sees evangelism as a “whole community” process gives everyone a chance to contribute, according to their abilities. I think that is very appealing.
Evangelizing in community is a very sensible and biblical idea, of course. Why close off a good and important option? My observation in the Christian community is that we tend to go through fads and phases about what style of evangelism will work, and I am happy to embrace the latest phase so long as you don’t force me to give up my old phase as well.
Just on Two Ways to Live, it used to be the case that this tended to emphasize just one way of doing evangelism (learn the outline, then tell people), but we keep trying to find ways to expand its usability and encourage people not to be bound by one way of telling people. I know, for example, that Dominic Steele’s extremely useful Introducing God course follows the basic Two Ways to Live outline in a way that enables it to be used in a community context. I’m glad that things like this keep coming along, because it highlights the idea that no one method should become king.
I agree Craig.
in a sense evangelism becomes antoher expression or outworking of the one anotherness that is so prevalent in the NT. what Steve suggests above is that this is actuially normative as opposed to prescribing less communally orientated evangelism.
who has heard the sermon app that goes - read your bible more, prayer more, make sure you come to church more and share Jesus with your friends?
If God chooses to use the community of believers to accelerate someone’s understanding of his word, then that is wonderful, but I don’t see that he is bound to, even if it is his normal way in today’s evangelistic climate.
of course he is not bound to, but the whole point is that his usual means of bringing his saving rule to the nations is through the proclamation and complementary? demonstration of his people.
your argument is similar to the whole signs and wonders approach. sure god can - but he usually doesn’t. you are arguing (or should I say conversing) like a charismatic Gordo!!
I wonder if there is not a stronger argument for mission in Acts being more communal thna we first think. That is an apostolic posse - that are church - even if only two or three - who come and communal testify to the word of grace. e.g Paul in Corinth?
Gordon you make the gospel community in mission approach sound faddish or optional. I think the authors of Total Church are suggesting something a little more principled and substantive.
Gordon you make the gospel community in mission approach sound faddish or optional
I don’t mean to do that.
It’s no more faddish or optional than evangelism is optional. I think what is potentially faddish (and I don’t suggest this of the Total Church authors at all) is excluding other ways of doing things. A generation ago, people would flock to evangelistic rallies with Billy Graham to hear a speaker they’d never met and likely would never meet, and some of them even became Christians there and then. Which everyone would have said was wonderful, because it was. Many of those who became Christians were nominal members of nominal church-going families (ask our Archbishop and Dean), with little exposure to church community beyond their fellow nominals that they saw at Christmas, Easter, and Sunday School if they were forced to attend.
And if you doubt that many of those nominal church communities were just that, then ask yourself where those hundreds and even thousands of people who attended Sunday School in the ‘50s and ‘60s are today!
But we would also have felt, back then, that the BG evangelism enthusiasts would have been going too far if they were going to exclude turning up to church and gradually learning the gospel as you joined with the community as a good way of doing things.
All I’m saying is, we shouldn’t fall into the equal and opposite error today.
On Acts: Yes, I don’t doubt that you could find examples of people becoming Christians in community in Acts. No argument there at all. It’s just that there are clear counter-examples. The 3000 in Acts 2 became Christians in the course of one sermon, through a man who some claimed was drunk. At the risk of sounding charismatic, that is no more a unique event than speaking in other languages (as also happened) is a unique event. I just don’t think the means whereby response occurs is the issue, which is why it’s so hard to exclude one particular method as being wrong. In fact, I don’t even think we should try to exclude a method as being wrong, except on moral grounds (2 Cor 4 again).
your argument is similar to the whole signs and wonders approach. sure god can - but he usually doesn’t.
Not really, because the only thing that I am arguing is normative is the hearing and responding to God’s word. This always happens, except for exceptional circumstances, if you know what I mean.
Just on Two Ways to Live, it used to be the case that this tended to emphasize just one way of doing evangelism (learn the outline, then tell people), but we keep trying to find ways to expand its usability and encourage people not to be bound by one way of telling people.
Absolutely. 2WTL is a great outline and it’s been very useful beyond 1-1 evangelism. Intro God is one good example. I’ve also heard it preached through as an outline of systematic theology. I’ve heard it used as a framework to examine topics. (eg. Money and parenthood). It’s a winner and I hope it inspires more products from you guys. The 1-1 evangelism course does need updating though, especially as Mark Dever just gave it a big plug!
To mind, the missing element in our evangelistic framework has been the pre-evangelism stage. When someone is willing to listen to the gospel, we have the tools to share it with them helpfully. But how do you get someone from the stage of not being interested in god stuff at all, to being willing to go to Introducing God, or go through 2WTL, or come to an evangelistic sermon?
Clearly it happens now, but not nearly as often as we’d all like. And I don’t feel that we’ve put the same level of resources and thinking into this pre-evangelistic stage as we have to the actuall sharing of the gospel itself. And that’s why the total church stuff has appealed to me, because it seems to address this issue (in part at least).
I read it and thought same old stuff - contend contend contend - but where is the call to faithfully and creatively contextualise without compromise.
As Gavin commented, sometimes we need to change in order to keep doing the same thing, to reevaluate and realign, listening to alterante voices and checking our compass again and again.
To mind, the missing element in our evangelistic framework has been the pre-evangelism stage. When someone is willing to listen to the gospel, we have the tools to share it with them helpfully. But how do you get someone from the stage of not being interested in god stuff at all, to being willing to go to Introducing God, or go through 2WTL, or come to an evangelistic sermon?
Clearly it happens now, but not nearly as often as we’d all like. And I don’t feel that we’ve put the same level of resources and thinking into this pre-evangelistic stage as we have to the actuall sharing of the gospel itself. And that’s why the total church stuff has appealed to me, because it seems to address this issue (in part at least).
I agree Craig — although I have to say that our church just did a thing on this very subject. Hints like leaving “Da Vinci Code” on your desk, and asking people if they’ve read it and what they thought — “waving the Christian flag”. There were 5 hints in total, and waving the flag was only one. I’ll have to download it and listen again. (“Open Doors” by Scott Warner, ministry dude at Macquarie University).
Are you looking for a specific resource but can’t find it? Do you have a resource or an idea that you’d like to share? Connect09 would like to hear from you.
You may be already using a tool, program or outreach event that could be of use to other Christians. Or maybe you have thought of something new and would like to get some feedback.
Use these fields to post your suggestion on our Ideas Page, view current ideas.
