I was driving past a church today that had one of those marquee-like signs out front filled with what they hoped would pass for wit and/or wisdom. As most of us do, I glanced over to read what trifle it contained this week. At the same time, the car in front of me had applied its brakes to turn a corner. I had to stop harder than usual to avoid a collision.
The question then occurred to me: What if someone looking at that sign actually hit the car in front of them and, God forbid, actually killed someone in the collision?
Then I thought, what if the pastor of that church could somehow know that at some point in the future, that the church's sign would divert someone's attention long enough that they would accidentally kill another person in an accident? What would that pastor do?
Of course, we'd contend he or she would remove the sign immediately.
Ah, but here's the dilemma: What if the pastor could never tell anyone what he or she knew about the sign and its effects? And what if the people of said church were irate over the sign and demanded it be put back up? What if the issue threatened to divide and destroy the church? What if the issue caused someone to lose his or her faith?
WWYD?
What would you do if you were the pastor of that church?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Relational Evangelism
Just this past week I was talking with someone about Emmaus Road Church and the fact that we're still meeting on Sunday nights with just us and one other person. That's one new person total in over 5 1/2 months of ministy here in Toledo. Not exactly stellar if you use the standards by which many church plants are measured.
Now I'm as good at justifying myself and make excuses as the next person, but I don't think what I'm about to say concerning our "numbers" at ERC is in any way a justification or excuse for our low numbers.
The conversation I had earlier turned to the subject of evangelism. The question arose about whether we might need to do more head-on evangelism to reach people. I had explained that we've made numerous significant relationships with many neighbors and have had a lot of contacts with folks in the community around us. But the question remained, are all of those contacts and the relationships really getting it done when it comes to growing a church and reaching people for Christ? Good question, and one I've asked myself a lot over the last few years.
My conversation partner brought up two examples to prod me further. First, he asked about Jesus' calling of the disciples--"Come and follow me"--which appears to indicate Jesus made a cold call to join Him, and they did. Second, he asked about the examples of the Aposlte Paul and John Wesley who preached publicly in what ostensibly was non-relational evangelism--speaking to large, unfamiliar crowds.
It was in answering these two questions that the reality that good evangelism has always been relational became apparent.
Matthew 4: 18-21 is the reference to the calling of several of the disciples. Often when we read it we take it out of context or we don't do a little common sense thinking about it (we fail to use common sense way too often when we approach the Bible--not explaining things away, but simply using common sense). Usually when I've heard people talk about Jesus calling the disciples we assume that Jesus neither knew these men nor did they know him; He just walked up, and His personal charisma and attractiveness reeled them in (pardon the pun).
I read it a different way. What makes us think that Jesus didn't know them before? As a rabbi or teacher (as Jesus is often called), He would have had contact with many people through His teachings. As a person who had to eat, He would have to have bought food from the local fishmongers and fishermen. As a carpenter, He may have even crafted fishing boats for the locals. All of these instances provided ample opportunity for Jesus to have contact with them.
And even more than that, how many of us would drop everything--family, friends, house, job (assuming we like our job)--to follow someone we know nothing about? If we wouldn't, then common sense says they wouldn't either. Moreover, why would Jesus choose men about whom He knew nothing to carry on His work after He'd returned to heaven? Doesn't it make much more sense that Jesus would have chosen persons whose character and personality He knew something about?
But beyond all of this, we have record in John's gospel that Jesus did already know these men. John 1:35-42 let's us in on this fact. You say, "Ah, but what about Nathanael? (See John 1:43-51. Some scholars think that the disciple Bartholemew is the same person as Nathanael.) It seems Jesus didn't know him ahead of time."
It helps if we understand the phrase "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree." That phrase in Jewish tradition commonly referred to one who was a student of Torah, as rabbis were often said to sit down under a fig tree to teach their students. In other words, Jesus had seen Nathanael learning about Torah and the Messiah at a previous time, perhaps when Nathanael was unaware he was being observed. And to take the relational evangelism element even further, even though Nathanael may not have known Jesus personally up to this point, he never-the-less was brought to Jesus on the strong recommendation of a close friend, Philip.
Concerning the Apostle Paul and John Wesley's preaching, I would simply point out two things: First, both Paul and Wesley (and many others I might add) utilized the public forum in a way consistent with their culture. Open air preaching or teaching was more common then than it is today. People who preach on street corners today are more often than not seen as something out of the ordinary. In Paul's and Wesley's days, it was not so. Second, both of them, although they preached (evangelized) in a public setting, in a seemingly impersonal, non-relational sort of way, were preaching to folks many of whom would join or were already part of communities of Jews or gentile Christians. For Paul is was the synagogue or house churches of his day. For Wesley, it was the bands and societies that he started in every town he visited. There existed strong relational ties in both instances.
All of that is to say that relational evangelism is a legitimate, and perhaps even superior, form of evangelism and one that we would be smart to follow.
As we've attempted to make many friendships here in Toledo, we understand that it accomplishes two things. First, it connects us to each other as humans in a way that God intended; indeed, relationship makes us more human, more like God intended. Second, it gives those whom we know, the opportunity to see and feel the incarnational love of God in Christ through us, and hopefully, they will come to know the fullness of life that is in Jesus Christ too.
Well, if you've stuck around this long, I'd love to hear your thoughts--even, and especially if, you disagree with me. I'm certainly not done learning.
Now I'm as good at justifying myself and make excuses as the next person, but I don't think what I'm about to say concerning our "numbers" at ERC is in any way a justification or excuse for our low numbers.
The conversation I had earlier turned to the subject of evangelism. The question arose about whether we might need to do more head-on evangelism to reach people. I had explained that we've made numerous significant relationships with many neighbors and have had a lot of contacts with folks in the community around us. But the question remained, are all of those contacts and the relationships really getting it done when it comes to growing a church and reaching people for Christ? Good question, and one I've asked myself a lot over the last few years.
My conversation partner brought up two examples to prod me further. First, he asked about Jesus' calling of the disciples--"Come and follow me"--which appears to indicate Jesus made a cold call to join Him, and they did. Second, he asked about the examples of the Aposlte Paul and John Wesley who preached publicly in what ostensibly was non-relational evangelism--speaking to large, unfamiliar crowds.
It was in answering these two questions that the reality that good evangelism has always been relational became apparent.
Matthew 4: 18-21 is the reference to the calling of several of the disciples. Often when we read it we take it out of context or we don't do a little common sense thinking about it (we fail to use common sense way too often when we approach the Bible--not explaining things away, but simply using common sense). Usually when I've heard people talk about Jesus calling the disciples we assume that Jesus neither knew these men nor did they know him; He just walked up, and His personal charisma and attractiveness reeled them in (pardon the pun).
I read it a different way. What makes us think that Jesus didn't know them before? As a rabbi or teacher (as Jesus is often called), He would have had contact with many people through His teachings. As a person who had to eat, He would have to have bought food from the local fishmongers and fishermen. As a carpenter, He may have even crafted fishing boats for the locals. All of these instances provided ample opportunity for Jesus to have contact with them.
And even more than that, how many of us would drop everything--family, friends, house, job (assuming we like our job)--to follow someone we know nothing about? If we wouldn't, then common sense says they wouldn't either. Moreover, why would Jesus choose men about whom He knew nothing to carry on His work after He'd returned to heaven? Doesn't it make much more sense that Jesus would have chosen persons whose character and personality He knew something about?
But beyond all of this, we have record in John's gospel that Jesus did already know these men. John 1:35-42 let's us in on this fact. You say, "Ah, but what about Nathanael? (See John 1:43-51. Some scholars think that the disciple Bartholemew is the same person as Nathanael.) It seems Jesus didn't know him ahead of time."
It helps if we understand the phrase "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree." That phrase in Jewish tradition commonly referred to one who was a student of Torah, as rabbis were often said to sit down under a fig tree to teach their students. In other words, Jesus had seen Nathanael learning about Torah and the Messiah at a previous time, perhaps when Nathanael was unaware he was being observed. And to take the relational evangelism element even further, even though Nathanael may not have known Jesus personally up to this point, he never-the-less was brought to Jesus on the strong recommendation of a close friend, Philip.
Concerning the Apostle Paul and John Wesley's preaching, I would simply point out two things: First, both Paul and Wesley (and many others I might add) utilized the public forum in a way consistent with their culture. Open air preaching or teaching was more common then than it is today. People who preach on street corners today are more often than not seen as something out of the ordinary. In Paul's and Wesley's days, it was not so. Second, both of them, although they preached (evangelized) in a public setting, in a seemingly impersonal, non-relational sort of way, were preaching to folks many of whom would join or were already part of communities of Jews or gentile Christians. For Paul is was the synagogue or house churches of his day. For Wesley, it was the bands and societies that he started in every town he visited. There existed strong relational ties in both instances.
All of that is to say that relational evangelism is a legitimate, and perhaps even superior, form of evangelism and one that we would be smart to follow.
As we've attempted to make many friendships here in Toledo, we understand that it accomplishes two things. First, it connects us to each other as humans in a way that God intended; indeed, relationship makes us more human, more like God intended. Second, it gives those whom we know, the opportunity to see and feel the incarnational love of God in Christ through us, and hopefully, they will come to know the fullness of life that is in Jesus Christ too.
Well, if you've stuck around this long, I'd love to hear your thoughts--even, and especially if, you disagree with me. I'm certainly not done learning.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
God Bless America!
After watching both political parties hold conventions the last two weeks, it appears that "God Bless America" is the new black. You couldn't be blamed if you thought the candidates were wind-up dolls who, when you pulled their strings their little electronic voices proffered you a very merry "God bless you, and God bless America!"
It's a common sentiment to voice and even desire in this proud country of ours. Especially as Christians, we want God to rest His blessing on us and the place we call home. It just makes sense.
While I don't think it's wrong to ask for God's wisdom, guidance, and blessing for our nation, too often we confuse our nationality with our Christianity. Or should I say we mix our nationality with our Christianity in a dangerous way. What happens is that we implicitly begin to believe that God's special favor resides with us in a way that it doesn't with other countries--especially ones where the people wear turbans and pray five times a day (far more than many Christians, I might add).
The other day I read the Book of Amos chapter 9, and it's been stuck in my craw ever since. I'm just putting it out there for you to consider in relation to the divine invocation we so often hear and the sentiments that undergird it. Here it is. Let me know what you think.
“Are you Israelites more important to me than the Ethiopians?” asks the Lord. “I brought Israel out of Egypt, but I also brought the Philistines from Crete and led the Arameans out of Kir.
“I, the Sovereign Lord, am watching this sinful nation of Israel. I will destroy it from the face of the earth. But I will never completely destroy the family of Israel,” says the Lord. “For I will give the command and will shake Israel along with the other nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, yet not one true kernel will be lost. 10 But all the sinners will die by the sword—all those who say, ‘Nothing bad will happen to us.’" (Amos 9:7-10, NLT).
It's a common sentiment to voice and even desire in this proud country of ours. Especially as Christians, we want God to rest His blessing on us and the place we call home. It just makes sense.
While I don't think it's wrong to ask for God's wisdom, guidance, and blessing for our nation, too often we confuse our nationality with our Christianity. Or should I say we mix our nationality with our Christianity in a dangerous way. What happens is that we implicitly begin to believe that God's special favor resides with us in a way that it doesn't with other countries--especially ones where the people wear turbans and pray five times a day (far more than many Christians, I might add).
The other day I read the Book of Amos chapter 9, and it's been stuck in my craw ever since. I'm just putting it out there for you to consider in relation to the divine invocation we so often hear and the sentiments that undergird it. Here it is. Let me know what you think.
“Are you Israelites more important to me than the Ethiopians?” asks the Lord. “I brought Israel out of Egypt, but I also brought the Philistines from Crete and led the Arameans out of Kir.
“I, the Sovereign Lord, am watching this sinful nation of Israel. I will destroy it from the face of the earth. But I will never completely destroy the family of Israel,” says the Lord. “For I will give the command and will shake Israel along with the other nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, yet not one true kernel will be lost. 10 But all the sinners will die by the sword—all those who say, ‘Nothing bad will happen to us.’" (Amos 9:7-10, NLT).
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The Problem with Politics
The real problem in politics seems to me to be that when you vote for a person--you end up voting for his or her party also--and all the people that are in that party. In effect you're saying, ostensibly, that you give your approval to that party and everything it stands for. That's harsh.
Anyway, I listened to several of the RNC speeches tonight, and the fact remains that based on experience and substance, John McCain seems to have a very strong upper hand. If voting were based on charisma, Obama wins in a landslide. If voting is based on ability and experience, McCain comes out ahead. I can't wait for the debates (I'm betting we'll actually see fisticuffs at the vice presidential debate!).
I wonder how many other people are still making up their minds in this election.
Anyway, I listened to several of the RNC speeches tonight, and the fact remains that based on experience and substance, John McCain seems to have a very strong upper hand. If voting were based on charisma, Obama wins in a landslide. If voting is based on ability and experience, McCain comes out ahead. I can't wait for the debates (I'm betting we'll actually see fisticuffs at the vice presidential debate!).
I wonder how many other people are still making up their minds in this election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
