John Parlow, St. Mark, Depere, is an enthusiastic member of the Willow Creek Ministerium, a nominal member of WELS.
Paul Kelm earned a DMin at Concordia St. Louis (Our Lady of Sorrows). He belongs to the Willow Creek Ministerium, so WELS needed him at The Love Shack to be a consultant. He is also a Leonard Sweet-heart. Kelm is a model unionist: he loves every denomination except his own.
Hybels is the senior minister at Willow Creek Community Church, where the Ichabod clan once visited. It is difficult to find a cross anywhere in the building, which looks like a Chicago shopping mall.
A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church
By Bob Burney
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
If you are older than 40 the name Benjamin Spock is more than familiar. It was Spock that told an entire generation of parents to take it easy, don’t discipline your children and allow them to express themselves. Discipline, he told us, would warp a child’s fragile ego. Millions followed this guru of child development and he remained unchallenged among child rearing professionals. However, before his death Dr. Spock made an amazing discovery: he was wrong. In fact, he said:
We have reared a generation of brats. Parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment. This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers. Of course, we did it with the best of intentions. We didn't realize until it was too late how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self assurance of parents.
Oops.
Something just as momentous, in my opinion, just happened in the evangelical community. For most of a generation evangelicals have been romanced by the “seeker sensitive” movement spawned by Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. The guru of this movement is Bill Hybels. He and others have been telling us for decades to throw out everything we have previously thought and been taught about church growth and replace it with a new paradigm, a new way to do ministry.
Perhaps inadvertently, with this “new wave” of ministry came a de-emphasis on taking personal responsibility for Bible study combined with an emphasis on felt-needs based “programs” and slick marketing.
The size of the crowd rather than the depth of the heart determined success. If the crowd was large then surely God was blessing the ministry. Churches were built by demographic studies, professional strategists, marketing research, meeting “felt needs” and sermons consistent with these techniques. We were told that preaching was out, relevance was in. Doctrine didn’t matter nearly as much as innovation. If it wasn’t “cutting edge” and consumer friendly it was doomed. The mention of sin, salvation and sanctification were taboo and replaced by Starbucks, strategy and sensitivity.
Thousands of pastors hung on every word that emanated from the lips of the church growth experts. Satellite seminars were packed with hungry church leaders learning the latest way to “do church.” The promise was clear: thousands of people and millions of dollars couldn’t be wrong. Forget what people need, give them what they want. How can you argue with the numbers? If you dared to challenge the “experts” you were immediately labeled as a “traditionalist,” a throwback to the 50s, a stubborn dinosaur unwilling to change with the times.
All that changed recently.
Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study’s findings are in a new book titled Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings “earth shaking,” “ground breaking” and “mind blowing.” And no wonder: it seems that the “experts” were wrong.
The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:
Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.
If you simply want a crowd, the “seeker sensitive” model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it’s a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:
We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.
Incredibly, the guru of church growth now tells us that people need to be reading their bibles and taking responsibility for their spiritual growth.
Just as Spock’s “mistake” was no minor error, so the error of the seeker sensitive movement is monumental in its scope. The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a “mistake.” The extent of this error defies measurement.
Perhaps the most shocking thing of all in this revelation coming out of Willow Creek is in a summary statement by Greg Hawkins:
Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet.
Isn’t that what we were told when this whole seeker-sensitive thing started? The church growth gurus again want to throw away their old assumptions and “take out a clean sheet of paper” and, presumably, come up with a new paradigm for ministry.
Should this be encouraging?
Please note that “rooted in Scripture” still follows “rethink,” “new insights” and “informed research.” Someone, it appears, still might not get it. Unless there is a return to simple biblical (and relevant) principles, a new faulty scheme will replace the existing one and another generation will follow along as the latest piper plays.
What we should find encouraging, at least, in this “confession” coming from the highest ranks of the Willow Creek Association is that they are coming to realize that their existing “model” does not help people grow into mature followers of Jesus Christ. Given the massive influence this organization has on the American church today, let us pray that God would be pleased to put structures in place at Willow Creek that foster not mere numeric growth, but growth in grace.
Bob Burney is Salem Communications’ award-winning host of Bob Burney Live, heard weekday afternoons on WRFD-AM 880 in Columbus, Ohio.
Read the article here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BobBurney/2007/10/30/a_shocking_%e2%80%9cconfession%e2%80%9d_from_willow_creek_community_church?page=full&comments=true
Article posted by Dave Ruddat
If you're interested in the "primary source", rather than a commentary, Hybels'
& Hawkins'
presentations can be found at:
http://revealnow.com/story.asp?storyid=49
Jeff Samelson
Willowcreek has some issues to deal with, but at
least they are honest enough to say that they messed
up and are willing to re-examining what they doing to
be more effective with their ministry. Maybe it would
be healthy for our church body to do the same.
Recently a study was produced by our synod that
reported why young people are leaving our church body.
It is a very informative and well-written document
that has a lot of great suggestions and possible
remedies. So what are we going to do about it? Are
we going to listen to what it says and develop a
stragetic plan to deal with this dilema, or are going
to file this report away and do nothing? Are we going
to adapt or change our approach to ministry to reach
those the church is losing and those we do not have,
or are we going to let these souls continue to stray?
Maybe this situation at Willowcreek will be our
wake up call. May God use us all to do His will.
Phil Boileau
Thank You Phil!
Great thoughts. Especially your last paragraph!
Mistakes of others - even if they are severe - do not make us better.
Clemens Erbacher
Well said, Phil.
Lyle Strehler
A part of me says, "That's incredible," but most of me is saying, "Nothing new here."
Thanks, Pastor Samelson, for adding the link. It was much more informative to me than the article--which was plenty informative all by itself (thanks, Dave). It is so tragic to listen to them say that they want to get out a new sheet of paper and challenge all their old assumptions and try to figure out what God is doing and see how he wants us to partner with him to transform this world. These are smart guys, but they are blinded by their desire for numbers and their prideful mixing of truth with error. This is how the Church Growth Movement started, and this is where it will always be, no matter how many new sheets of paper they get out, until they repent of their false doctrine.
They talk about "experiencing God" and being "close" or "centered in Christ." They talk about "intimacy" with Christ, when what they really need to be talking about is being consistent with the Word of God and bowing in Jesus' presence to hear his teaching in Spirit-born humility.
And so, of course, do we.
In Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Not sure I'll have anything very insightful to add, but since you asked ;-)
I think we all agree we have plenty of shortcomings in WELS. On the other hand, I'll admit I find it a bit ironic when someone tries to hold up Willow Creek as a positive role model for us in that they are admitting guilt in doing exactly what many (and implicitly they) have criticized the WELS for NOT doing over the years. (Note - I'm not saying that their admission isn't a good thing - I'm just noting the irony here)
Another bit of irony to me is that the biggest lesson I take from this Willow Creek admission is that we need to be extremely cautious about trusting man-made studies about what is "effective", rather than trusting in the Means of Grace offered forth as the solution in Scripture. Not that this is necessarily an either-or proposition, or that there isn't any value to be gleaned from things like the youth study that was mentioned, but it seems to me if anything Willow Creek's overall experience would be an argument *against* putting much stock in such a study, rather than for it. (Once again, just pointing out the irony - I think that's why I had a similar reaction to Pastor Frey in reading some of these responses. I understand the intended point was that we should identify and learn from our mistakes as they did, which is good advice)
One other point - be careful not to give WC too much credit that they now have "seen the light" and are being a good example for us. If you read/listen carefully once again their stated resolution is to start with a "blank slate" and get creative about new ministry ideas, rather than starting with Scripture. They still aren't acknowledging that there is a flaw in their approach of "watered down" worship - they think the answer lies in some supplementary self-study programs to fill the void (not that those are a bad thing in and of themselves). Starting with a "blank slate" is what got them in the mess they're in now, and if they make the same fundamental mistake again they'll probably just end up with some new, innovative misguided programs.
- Mark Salzwedel
I do not remember what Pastor Frey wrote about Willow Creek, but I have some general comments on non-denominational mega churches.
Our local mega church here in Milwaukee is Elmbrook. Elmbrook has a nice but short doctrinal statement in a folder at every pew. It is basically an expansion of the Nicene Creed. Most every other doctrine beyond this very brief list is open to discussion. Some doctrines are not even open to discussion, as only the liberal (non-Biblical) view is accepted.
A friend of mine, who is a very active member of Elmbrook, describes it as a starter church, where you can pick the pastor who teaches what you want. The many pastors at Elmbrook take varying stands on each doctrine. They have no doctrinal unity beyond their brief doctrinal statement.
My personal assumption is that more souls will be in heaven because of Elmbrook's existence than if it had not existed, but I worry that the faith of many has been ship wrecked because of Elmbrook.
We in the WELS can learn a lot from churches like Elmbrook. It does many good things. Unfortunately, there is also a dark side to such heterodox churches, and especially to churches that put gaining members above teaching what the Bible says.
Mark Bergemann
Thanks, Phil. I was trying to leave what I should read into your message open. I just recognized in the comments some potential fuel for the fire of tension that many perceive to be growing in the WELS. I'm not one for backing off of tensions in my family of Christian brothers and sisters. I'm the kind of guy who wants to get in there and resolve it so that our unity can be stronger--more like that which Christ prayed for on the night before he died.
Perhaps you're not quite as sensitive to it as I am, Phil, but when people who have seen evidence of a waning love of doctrine in the synod see a response like yours, they're going to tend to wonder about that tension. Sometimes when we talk so much about how much good we can draw out of a heterodox teacher's writings, the fact that they are heterodox gets downplayed. Sometimes it begins to sound like we think we can learn more from the heterodox teachers out there than we can from gathering together around the Word ourselves and making the same old truths our own again--almost as though we think that we've done that already just because we're WELS.
Words like "effective ministry" add fuel to that fire to--which is something that I tried to address on the discussion server, but we never seemed to find a solid unity on the question. The problem with talking about effective ministry is that the word effective always assumes a goal. If you reach the goal you are effective. If you don't reach it, you are not effective. Where the majority of heterodox churches in America are concerned, that goal is exactly the point in which they most depart from Scripture, and thus where their false teaching becomes the most evident and the most dangerous. When all we do is commend them for finding ways to be more effective without also speaking clearly concerning the deadly lies they are swallowing in Christ's name, we add to our own confusion and fall short of building the body up as we ought.
Like I said, I was leaving what I personally should read into your message open. But since I seem to be built with a strong desire to get into the tensions I perceive in my Christian family and try to resolve them with the truth that builds our unity, I wanted to make sure that I did more than understand what you wrote correctly myself. I wanted to make sure that the unity that God has given us in the mind of Christ was well served, that is, that no one took what you wrote in a way that serves the tensions so many perceive among us. I thought that if you added your amen to the truth that Willow Creek has not so much repented of what they have done wrong as gone right back to the same old deadly error that is at their core, then we could move forward with the issues that we ourselves are faced with and do so with greater strength and confidence, knowing that we are truly walking together.
In Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Maybe I missed the earlier discussion of what “Willow Creek’s Confession” was and where it can be found to read, as I just joined C&C. Can someone enlighten me. I was a little disconcerted to hear one of the responders say that he fears Elmbrook may have shipwrecked many Christians. First of all, I don’t think that is for anyone to judge but God. I have visited Elmbrook and various occasions, read their doctrinal statement, which definitely preaches Christ crucified for sinners. I have read materials by both Pastor and Jill Briscoe. I haven’t come across anything that would have shipwrecked me. It seems that the main differences between the WELS and a church like Elmbrook is our view of what the Sacraments do or (in their case) don’t do.
I think we are often quick to judge without doing a thorough examination of what we are judging. Relying on the comments of one member of a church may not be the best way to find out what the actual dogma and practice of a church is. Talking with the Pastors there about the doctrinal positions of the church might be a better way to go about it.
What churches like Elmbrook seem to do better than us, and perhaps the reason they have grown, is that they seem to reach to the needs of individuals, whatever their age bracket, affliction, problem, etc. and provide an avenue of assistance and counseling for them. I know WELS people who have gone their for counseling because they received more help and Biblical resources than they did from their WELS pastors (myself included). Some of our churches think the pastor is equipped to do everything and/or that he should, when, in fact, certain areas of ministry may not be his particular gift.
Jan Nelson
Jan,
I used to think the same thing, that we only disagreed on Sacramental
issues, but it's a lot bigger than that (and speaking broadly here--
beyond Elmbrook).
I spent about 7 years on a message board for Christian mothers. I
spent most of my time on the Theology/Doctrinal discussion area.
Amazingly enough it was here that I really began to understand
fellowship (see my initial post).
So, let's say we disagree on baptism. It seems like a simple thing--it
really does on the surface until you start talking about everything
attached to baptism. When a person tells you that you aren't truly
baptized because you were not immersed. Or you might not be saved
because you don't have a valid confession of faith or you didn't
speak in tongues, you didn't make your choice for Christ--your
parents did, etc. I don't know how many times I heard women state
that their little ones claimed to "love" Jesus, but should they
believe them?? This all then is connected to original sin--is it real
or not (and believe it or not many don't believe in original sin)?
How about the age of accountability? What about purifying our
children from sin via spanking (ala Gary Ezzo/Michael Pearl). What is
sanctification--many teach a lot of legalistic rules to where
sanctification becomes a dysfunctional justification. What about the
legalism that binds so many believers that they fear their loving
Father's judgment. What about those who don't "feel" saved...who are
told by their church they should be "on fire" all the time, but
aren't? What about the woman who feels guilty because she "faked"
speaking in tongues? What about the child who is crying because she
doesn't know if her "commitment" is real enough?
I could go on and on, but that is just a glimpse of what I have
discussed with women (some of which are good friends now) from
various denominations over the past 7 years. It opened my eyes and
made me realize how hurtful false teaching is.
Now, I believe in the Holy Christian Church (aka "the invisible"
church), so I recognize that God's Word is always working despite
what Satan may try to do. However, it bothers me to read about women
who are literally hurting from the false teaching within their
churches. Is everything in their church horrible? No, but that
doesn't change the fact that there are some dangerous teachings
present.
I don't think that pointing out the doctrinal weaknesses in another
denomination is wrong--no more than it would be to examine ourselves
and point out our own weaknesses doctrinal or otherwise (which
everyone here seems to agree we have weakness).
Shanna Wright
Shanna:
I found your reply to Jan Nelson to be respectful and helpful, as well as thoughtful and thought-provoking. Yours is an example of the style of communication we are looking for on the Church and Change listserv.
Thank you.
Jim Aderman
Church and Change, moderator
Friends,
First let me say I appreciate the spirit of these discussions. A great improvement from past threads.
As the discussion continues I offer this warning: don't confuse "effective" with "efficacious". The Gospel is timelessly efficacious, the church and its representatives may or may not be effective. I pray we are all seeking better methods of delivering God's truth. The Means of Grace demand an audience.
We do want to seek to be effective as we share THE efficacious. To fail to differentiate these two will likely cause one to either fall into the liberal left ditch of "Church Growth Theology" or into the loveless right ditch of "Us Four, No More, Shut the Door" or "All I Have To Be Is Faithful" mentality. If it is not important for us to be effective communicators and ambassadors of THE efficacious in our 21st Century culture, then the Seminary needs to stop requiring homiletics and education classes (I have a hunch that's also why we switched from German to English and today translate our materials into Spanish).
The WillowCreek study was to examine how to help people better mature in their faith -- the very thing Scripture wants all of us to do. I believe we would all agree with this same need for self-examination in our own churches and church body.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
I'd like to get a look at that study to see if it might be helpful to our
congregation. Could someone please provide a link or tell me where I could get a
copy? Thanks!
Dale Oppermann
Pastor Parlow-
I would appreciate you expanding on that thought. I've been studying "effective" and "efficacious" a lot and have yet to find an explanation that is drawing a true distinction between the two. Webster calls them synonyms, both meaning "having the power to produce a desired effect." I have heard people talk about Mueller, Pieper and Koehler all distinguishing between the two, and yet I find them using the terms interchangably. When they speak of the Word as being "effective" or "efficacious," they are referring to the fact that the Word has the power in and of itself to convert souls, not that some are more effective in their use of it than others. Especially interesting is Mueller's citation of Luther's arguments that the Word has latent power that exists even outside of its use (extra usum). There he quotes Luther from his exposition of Psalm 8: "“We must put off the foolish confidence that we ourselves can effect anything through the Word in the hearts of our hearers; rather should we diligently continue in the prayer that God alone, without us, would render mighty and active in the hearers the Word which He proclaims through preachers and teachers.†(St. L., IV, 626.)"
As far as "Us Four, No More, Shut the Door," I have to say that I have known members who thought that way before, but I rebuked them. My experience in the ministerium of the WELS tells me that other pastors would do the same. Perhaps your experience is different, in which case you can rebuke your brother(s). As far as "All I Have To Be Is Faithful," I think there is another warning in order: Be careful about using the term faithful in a negative fashion. The first attitude you characterize has no place in Scripture nor in the church--at all. The idea of being faithful to our calls and to the gospel is held up in Scripture as among our highest goals both as Christians and as preachers of the gospel of Christ (see list of passages appended to the end of this message).
I think what you mean to say (correct me if I am wrong) is that someone who is not sharing the gospel with as many people as they can and to the best of their ability is not being faithful, even if they say that they are. Some might say that they are not being effective, but that just confuses the issue, because then the guy who says he is being faithful just says, "Hey! The Word is always effective! You're putting too much emphasis on the man!" Saying that they are not being faithful gives us a Scriptural foundation on which to build.
If the "faithfulness guy" is preaching the Word in some kind of code language (including, of course, foreign languages) or in a way that doesn't take into account where his listeners are, he is not being faithful. He is being loveless. He doesn't even understand the Word himself, or else he would never settle for such slovenly treatment of his duties as a preacher. You could say that he is not being "effective," but that would not be nearly as helpful. Considering the way that so much Christian literature today uses the term "effective," you even run the risk of communicating a falsehood to the person you are trying to build up as a minister of Christ.
In the majority of literature that concerns itself with the topic of effectiveness today, (Andy Stanley, Bill Hybels and Rick Warren being my least favorite but most clear examples) effective means "it makes disciples." We want to bring people to Christ (that is our desired goal), so we are effective when lots of people come to Christ. But that is unscriptural. People are not effective at bringing (they are not the power that brings) other people to Christ. The Word is effective at bringing others to Christ. If I do not share the Word, that is, if I am not preaching it in its full, powerful truth and purity to everyone I have the ability to preach it to, I am being unfaithful. Saying I'm being ineffective just confuses the issue and bows to the language of a group of teachers that we know to be heterodox. I am unfaithful if I do not share the Word to the best of my ability, whether that be by shutting my mouth, by shutting my doors or by failing to bring the message of Christ to people who are standing right in front of me, despite my rambling on at the mouth.
I think that is also what you are getting at in using the term "effective." You'll need to correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly concur that this is a very useful discussion. Perhaps you could reprint your example of the guy by the edge of the road with a flat tire to give us something to go on. I'm not remembering it very clearly and can't seem to find it among the things that I brought home from the conference this year. I think it would also be helpful to me if you could give me some Scriptural examples of the term "effective" being used of preachers so I understand the direction from which you are approaching this.
Your brother in Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Aaron,
I believe you have accurately understood what I meant by "effective" and using the word "faithful" in a seemingly unloving way. Below are the three senarios I had used at the C & C conference as I discussed relevance.
Three scenarios
1. You are on the side of the road with a flat tire and someone pulls up behind you, pops open his trunk and approaches you with a set of jumper cables . . . .
2. The previous week, your boss offered an optional seminar in the parking lot on tire-changing techniques and roadside safety . . . .
3. You’re on the side of the road with a flat tire at night and a car pulls up behind you. Three really big, scary looking guys jump out speaking a foreign language . . . .
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
jan-mary@... wrote:
What churches like Elmbrook seem to do better than us, and perhaps the reason they have grown, is that they seem to reach to the needs of individuals, whatever their age bracket, affliction, problem, etc. and provide an avenue of assistance and counseling for them. I know WELS people who have gone their for counseling because they received more help and Biblical resources than they did from their WELS pastors (myself included). Some of our churches think the pastor is equipped to do everything and/or that he should, when, in fact, certain areas of ministry may not be his particular gift.
.
Jan:
Should such help be an institutional part of the church's ministry? Or are these things we as Christians can do? Having gone through career "redeployment" I can offer aid and assistance to others who are also seeking what their career should be, such as those leaving prison. I don't think Salem needs to have a structure in place for me to help another in need.
There are a number of books out there that tell the reader to find the need in the community/neighborhood and fill that need. All well and fine, but then does the church become another social agency in this world and possibly neglect the Gospel?
Just something to think about.
John Hoh
Actually as "sinners" in the "sinner-saint" equation there is always something broken, something wrong. I imagine that's why Luther saw his baptism as a living thing in his life, a reminder that *daily* we drown the Old Adam so that the New Man comes forth.
Hence a major difference between Lutheran, Catholic, and Reformed. As Lutherans we believe that we "cannot by our own reason or strength believe." The official Catholic position is that a sinner helps God in the process--God took away the original sin, but your stuck cleaning up your own individual messes. The Reformed (from hence the megachurches come) believe if we follow the instructions in the Bible we will be saved--of course it helps that we were "destined for damnation" rather than pre-destined for damnation (in their view).
Look at the book titles in a Chrstian bookstore--or even at NPH. The Catholic literature will be dogmatic as well as mystical, especially about the Sacrament.
Reformed literature will be "how-to" in nature. Prettymuch like the "how to do evangelism" books that are out there (and yes I read most of them).
Lutherans tend to write about doctrine and theology and their applications to our lives.
John Hoh
John's post brings up a major difference in doctrine between confessional
Lutherans such as the WELS, and the doctrinal descendents of Calvin and
Zwingli such as Baptists, Presbyterians, and the mega-churches.
Lutherans view justification as the center of theology. Everything that we
teach, and all of our ministries, are laid upon this foundation. It is
called the theology of the cross. We teach, as the Bible teaches,
Christ-For-Us.
Reformed churches teach Christ-In-Us. They view sanctification as the
center of theology. I believe that it is called a theology
of glory. They talk about having Christ on the throne of your heart. They
talk allot about our duty to God. They often look inward to good works,
instead of outward to Jesus and what he did for us.
At first this may seem like a small difference and one of emphasis only. It
is actually very major, in that this emphasis permeates everything that is
taught, and all that is done for ministry. Teaching Christ-In-Us instead of
Christ-For-Us opens the door to work righteousness and leads people away
from trusting only Jesus for their salvation.
The Christ-In-Us mentality leads to all sorts of false teachings. Shanna
mentioned some of these in her recent post. When I need assurance that I am
saved, should I look inside to see if Christ is on the throne of my heart,
or should I look to the cross and to Jesus and what Jesus did for me?
Mark Bergemann
Pastor Parlow,
I was thinking about the 3 scenarios this weekend (from your previous
post)....could you please expand on them a bit more as I would like to
see if I am understanding you correctly.
Thank you.
In Christ,
Shanna Wright
What if the church did act as a "social agency" (among all it's
other missions) that DID NOT ignore the gospel. I would guess we all
know that we need to help our fellow man individually but fall short
of the goal. Sometimes a church with some type of structure can help
us to reach out to people who have come to the church for help. Why
are we limiting our church? Shouldn't our church bodies live in love
just as we are to do individually?
Dianne Wendt
The Bible agrees that the church should act as a social agency. In Acts 6, the apostles set the example by choosing seven men to oversee the distribution of food to the widows - a social program of the early Church. And others would sell property and donate the money to the church to take care of the needy.
But just as important, Jesus expects individuals to also minister to the earthly needs of people. Matthew 25:34-36: "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'"
As Christians, aren't we compelled to act out our faith as love towards our fellow man? To not do this would be to not reflect the love of Christ in our lives. As I Corinthians 13:2 says: "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Matthew Plocher
Shanna,
Here are just some insights. I hope this helps.
Three scenarios
1. You are on the side of the road with a flat tire and someone pulls up behind you, pops open his trunk and approaches you with a set of jumper cables . . . .
2. The previous week, your boss offered an optional seminar in the parking lot on tire-changing techniques and roadside safety . . . .
3. You’re on the side of the road with a flat tire at night and a car pulls up behind you. Three really big, scary looking guys jump out speaking a foreign language . . . .
1. Information that does not address your felt need is perceived as irrelevant. For example offering an investment seminar for a congregation of young people who carry a great deal of credit card debt. Yes, they will need investment planning in the future but their immediate need will be getting a handle on their debt.
2. Informaton that you aren’t convinced you will ever need is perceived as irrelevant. For example, people who volunteer to lead a small group Bible study may understand they need biblical training but not training in group dynamics. After one meeting, they then realize they need some training in group dynamics and realize it is very relevant.
3. An uncomfortable context can distract us to the point where we perceive relevant information as irrelevant. For example, distracting church decor, cleanliness issues, bad PA, too cold, no nursing mom, or a confusing worship format.
To be relevant . . .
1. We have to be aware of current felt needs.
2. We need to elevate the awareness of unfelt needs (sin, need for a Savior, real purpose in life) of our audience before we start to address these needs.
3. We need to address needs in a way that people consider helpful.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
Our WELS congregations do act as a
"social agency" in many ways, both for
their own members and also for
non-members. If you are only aware of what
is offered by your own congregation, you
may not know of the many services
that WELS groups provide. I will try to
quickly list a few.
Here in Wisconsin, if our members need
counseling beyond what their pastors
can provide, professional counselors are
available from Wisconsin Lutheran
Child and Family Service. While
mega-churches such as Elmbrook may
be able to offer such services directly,
several of our congregations often band
together to offer these services.
Many of our WELS congregations subsidize
one or more retirement homes. I believe
that many, if not the majority, of the
residents at these homes are not WELS.
I must also mention Calvary Academy
which rehabilitates young teens. Our
congregations also support several
prison ministries, reaching out to those
behind bars.
Many WELS congregations operate
and subsidize a child care center,
and many of the children served
are not WELS.
For more than 100 years our WELS
congregations have operated elementary
schools. At least a few years ago,
this was the fourth largest private
school system in the USA. Almost
all of these schools are heavily
subsidized above the tuition charged.
Especially here in Milwaukee with
school vouchers, many of the students
are not WELS and many are unchurched.
Christian Life Recourses, operates a
large number of pregnancy counseling
centers. These centers not only save
infants from abortion, but also
provide counseling and material
help to mothers.
Other groups include:
-WELS Committee on Relief (disaster aid)
-Central African Medical Mission
-English as a Second Language (ESL)
-recreational youth centers
-Jesus Cares (developmental disability support)
Mark Bergemann
John:
So, the way I'm reading your words is simply this--we need to proclaim....
Law and Gospel
That's how I understand what you wrote. Am I right?
Thanks,
Steve Kurtzahn
Steve,
When speaking of relevance I am stating the context of ministry should be shaped by the culture and your audience. The message you proclaim is non-negotiable.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
Everyone-
This is exactly why we need to be talking about this more than we are. Those three illustrations have great potential to be used faithfully in the Lord's service. They also hold great potential for being used to our harm as tools of deception. There is far more subtlety and danger here than we normally want to admit.
The story of the flat tire and the jumper cables serves Pastor Parlow's point of illustrating what relevance is well. I believe that what makes some members of the WELS uncomfortable with such talk, however (quite frankly, I am sometimes one of them), is that those exact words are spoken by false teachers in subtly deceptive and deadly ways. Perhaps you are unaware of the source, Pastor Parlow, but that illustration seems to be a favorite of Andy Stanley's. That is, it's a favorite of Andy Stanley's if a young pastor named Michael Lukaszewski has his facts straight. I found it on his website (http://oakleaf.typepad.com/michael/church/index.html).
My point isn't to accuse you of teaching what Andy Stanley teaches, of course. I just want to point out why some illustrations, while potentially useful in the right context, also carry with them some baggage from past use that makes them prone to being misunderstood. If we use them, then, we need to make sure that our audience knows we understand the baggage and reject it.
I'll just modify that first illustration in an attempt to make it speak more directly to preaching law and gospel and then see what discussion ensues. You come across a dead car on a nearly deserted road in the middle of the desert. It's clearly been there a while. The driver, however, is still there with it. He's frantic and delirious. He has all the doors open, as well as the hood and the trunk. He has with him just about every tool for cars imaginable and has lots of spare parts. He is trying every one in every way he can think of. He's replaced the battery twice and he's put on four new tires (would you believe he's been carrying them in the back seat just in case of such an emergency?). He's even put on a new coat of paint!
It doesn't take you long to realize, however, that none of that is going to help because he's out of gas. But a house fire that killed his father when he was young has birthed in him a fear of flammable material. A cruel "friend" who wants him dead has fueled that fear by teaching him that all people who want to put gas in cars are hurtful and dangerous. Strangely, the driver is plenty friendly and he is willing to spend long hours discussing anything and everything having to do with cars and car maintenance, but he refuses to deal with gasoline. It scares him senseless. He immediately considers you untrustworthy for even having brought it up and, even though he is dying of hunger and thirst, he wants nothing more to do with your attempts to fill his car with gasoline.
Should you spend some time agreeing with him that he really does need a new windshield in the hopes that one day he will calm down enough about the gasoline that you can sneak some in?
If we keep this illustration on a purely human level there might even be some legitimate arguments for "playing along" with the delirious driver for a while. It could possibly save his life. However, when it comes to the often hidden (Jeremiah 17:9), always irrational hostility of the dead, sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-9; Romans 8:7), playing along is unfaithful to our call and delusional. When it comes to getting anyone out of this desert alive, we are powerless to get through the defenses of the sinful mind. We even retain the tendency to get caught up in the peripherals ourselves, all the while letting our tanks run down to empty (1 Corinthians 10:12; Romans 7:14-25; Colossians 2:13-23; Galatians 1:6-9; 5:1-26).
It was thinking of these truths, actually, that led me to respond to the WC confession in the way that I did in the first place. We have no way to "trick" anyone into faith. If we think we can save anyone from death in this dreadful desert by playing around with the peripherals and then sneaking in a little of the good stuff when folks finally start to trust that we're on their side... how foolish! Indeed, how sinful. God might choose to win a soul despite our foolishness, of course, but if we believe that our actions in any way made his gasoline more effective or that they made it any easier for God to get the gasoline into the car, then we begin to serve our own prideful bellies with our ministries.
Keep in mind, brothers and sisters, that I am accusing no one of this sinful foolishness. I fully expect that everyone in this forum will support what I am saying and gladly use it to help them analyze when it is appropriate to speak of relevance and effectiveness and when it is not. My rough words, I'm sure, could use some refinement, but I welcome such aid and eagerly anticipate your responses so that we may sharpen one another in the truth, putting useless and destructive arguments behind us.
Your brother in Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
For reference, here is the NIV text of the passages I quoted:
Je 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Eph 2:1-9 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ro 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
1 Co 10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!
Ro 7:14-25 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Col 2:13-23 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Ga 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Ga 5:1-26 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Aaron Frey
Interesting story, if over-done and melodramatic. I had never heard it before.
Anyway, it does bring a false dichotomy to the table. The stranded motorist, most would point out, is not thinking in a rational manner. Notice how the narrator has to explain the many idiosyncracies (well, except for why he "happens" to carry an entire extra set of tires in his car).
Many unbelievers we meet are of sound mind, well-educated, and do think rationally. The story, as told, would allow the audience to think *they* have the right frame of mind, but the unbeliever is in some way or to some degree *unhinged.*
There is something Paul tells the Corinthians about the "foolishness of God" and the "'wisdom' of man." We cannot prove our faith in any empirical manner.
That's the funny thing about faith. It *doesn't* make sense. Maybe that's why Luther said "I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him."
John Hoh
John,
Thands for illustrating so well some key issues we face as we
consider how best to communicate the message entrusted to us. You
mentioned previously that you used these illustrations in your
presentation at the recent Church and Change Conference. I wasn't
able to make your session (there were way too many "must-attend"
offerings at this conference). Do you have materials/handouts that
you could post or otherwise make available for those who missed it?
Mike Borgwardt
Crossroads Church, Chicago
John-
The melodrama is, in a sense, my point. We are born without true faith in God and without true fear of God, even though we are full of religiosity. We are dead (Eph 2), but think we are alive (1Co 1 and 2). The motorist in the story is unhinged in general. He's a nice guy. He'll talk to you for hours. He has great insight into various automotive improvements--probably more than you. When it comes to gasoline, however, he gets unhinged. The closer he gets to the realization that he's going to have to put gasoline in the car, the more frantic he becomes, knowing he has to do something but never wanting to stop his search for an alternative using that fiery material. "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Romans 8:7).
The absolute truth that God hates the things we do without Christ is one of those things that is spiritually discerned. People will accept facsimiles of something like that truth, but it takes God's work to change a man to accept as true the full force of the law and the full comfort of the gospel. We have to remember this whenever discussing "felt needs" and relevance so that the small truths that we extract from the falsehoods touted by heterodox teachers are kept squarely in their place theologically. Useful? Potentially, if understood correctly. That's why I thought the melodrama would be useful in clarifying Pastor Parlow's point, so that we didn't take him to be talking in the same way as the false teacher who seems to have invented the three illustrations he mentioned.
A few more verses to put my story in biblical perspective:
Jn 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Jn 1:10-13 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Jn 3:19-21 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
1 Co 12:3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Jn 8:37-38 I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."
In Christ,
Aaron Frey
John:
I wrote this on another blog in order to explain how I understood your words. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you're trying to say. BTW, this other blog is copying quotes from this listserv and then ripping them apart. I personally think it's unethical, and I hope people don't stop posting here because they're afraid their words will show up somewhere else.
Anyways, here's what I wrote:
"Your neighbor down the street just lost her husband to a heart attack. You go down to her house with a meal, and as you sit and visit with her you discover her husband had no life-insurance. Out of Christian love you may help with some money so she can pay for the funeral, or you may even direct her to where she can find a part-time job. But this discussion can also lead you to talk about sin and grace, law and gospel. You can talk to her about sin and its results and she can relate because of her husband's death. You can also share the forgiveness of Christ and the hope of the resurrection."
So, when the Christian responds out of love to this woman's physical needs such her lack of money, that is responding to her "felt needs" (or whatever you want to call it). Her physical or "felt" need offers the opportunity to point out to her her greatest need, and then we can move right into a presentation of the gospel.
Am I representing what you wrote accurately?
Steve Kurtzahn
Brothers and sisters-
I hate to sound like a kid in need of acknowledgment, but is John really the only one with a comment on my melodramatic illustration? I believe that this understanding of conversion is what sets us apart from the false teachers of Andy Stanley, Rick Warren and Kent Hunter's ilk. I believe this understanding of the unregenerate is the very thing that must be acknowldged or we have already started following these false teachers down the wrong road. We need to understand that the sinful mind is hostile to God in the way that the irrational motorist is ludicrously hostile to the idea of putting gasoline in his car. Failure to understand that is to take too much credit for work that only the Holy Spirit can do. It turns the conversion of Christians into some degree of human persuasion. To see conversion as any degree of human persuasion (that is, leading people to a conclusion on the basis of their natural desires and powers of reason) is to see people that God calls dead, hostile and blind as people who are somehow naturally predisposed to embracing God, which is reflected in the classic Church Growth line for which Don McGavran became famous: "Men and women like to become Christians without crossing linguistic, racial and class lines."
The illustration of the irrational motorist attempts to illustrate dead (not going anywhere with no hope of going anywhere), hostile (irrationally antagonistic toward the one thing that will get him going again, which is gasoline) and blind (foolishly thinking that he can solve the problem without ever actually addressing it, even though it should be obvious that painting his car isn't going to get him out of that desert). Given the passages I've quoted, have I gone too far? I'm looking for feedback because the perception is that this is exactly that area of theology in which we have lost our unity, so speak up! If you agree with me, respond so that the fearful can see that they have nothing to be concerned about as far as our understanding of conversion and the means of grace here in the WELS.
Below are a couple of quotes from the Formula of Concord, Article 2, Concerning the Free Will. The first two are "positive statements," reflecting what the framers and signers actually taught. The other two are from the negative theses, reflecting false teachings that they reject. They illustrate how Lutherans of the past have confessed the truths of those passages which I have previously referenced.
Positive:
1. On this article it is our teaching, faith, and confession that human reason and understanding are blind in spiritual matters and understand nothing on the basis of their own powers, as it is written, “Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them and they are unable to understand them†[1 Cor. 2:14*] when they are asked about spiritual matters.
2. Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerated human will is not only turned away from God but has also become God’s enemy, that it has only the desire and will to do evil and whatever is opposed to God, as it is written, “The inclination of the human heart is evil from youth†[Gen. 8:21*]. Likewise, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot†[Rom. 8:7*]. As little as a corpse can make itself alive for bodily, earthly life, so little can people who through sin are spiritually dead raise themselves up to a spiritual life, as it is written, “When we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ†[Eph. 2:5*]. Therefore, we are not “competent of ourselves to claim anything [good] as coming from us; our competence is from God†(2 Cor. 3[:5*]).
Negative:
4. Likewise, the teaching that, although human beings are too weak to initiate conversion with their free will before rebirth, and thus convert themselves to God on the basis of their own natural powers and be obedient to God’s law with their whole hearts, nonetheless, once the Holy Spirit has made a beginning through the preaching of the Word and in it has offered his grace, the human will is able out of its own natural powers to a certain degree, even though small and feeble, to do something, to help and cooperate, to dispose and prepare itself for grace, to grasp this grace, to accept it, and to believe the gospel.
8. Likewise, when this wording is used without explanation: that the human will resists the Holy Spirit before, in, and after conversion, and that the Holy Spirit is given to those who intentionally and stubbornly resist him. For, as Augustine says, in conversion God makes willing people out of the unwilling and dwells in the willing.
Some ancient and modern teachers of the church have used expressions such as, “Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit,†that is, “God draws, but he draws those who are willingâ€; and “Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa, sed agit aliquid,†that is, “The human will is not idle in conversion but also is doing something.†Because such expressions have been introduced as confirmation of the natural free will in conversion contrary to the teaching of God’s grace, we hold that these expressions do not correspond to the form of sound teaching, and therefore it is proper to avoid them when speaking of conversion to God.
On the other hand, it is correct to say that in conversion God changes recalcitrant, unwilling people into willing people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and that after this conversion the reborn human will is not idle in the daily exercise of repentance, but cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit which he performs through us.
Kolb, R., Wengert, T. J., & Arand, C. P. (2000). The Book of Concord : The confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (493). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Your brother in Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Pastor Frey,
I'm still digesting it all. It's been hard to put my thoughts into
words. Honestly, I'm struggling with what I am seeing in some
Lutheran churches--but it's hard to talk about because everyone seems
to be on edge when there is an attempt to delve into this issue.
What I struggle with the most is that we don't understand that our
uniqueness as Lutherans is valuable to the world. I know it doesn't
always seem that way when the Evangelicals seems to be doing so much
better with the numbers (though if we only go by numbers, Pentecost
was a statistical failure)...but still, I think we are giving up a
uniqueness that would fill the need of many in this country and
world.
For example, I cringe when I see children removed from worship in
some Lutheran churches. I cringe for a lot of reasons. The first is
the historical reasoning behind removing children. Today, the same
churches that will laud children as "gifts of God" will also see them
as a "tool of Satan" who will drive you away from God's word. Those
evil children don't let them distract you from worship on Sunday!!
Believe it or not, it's not an uncommon teaching in visible
Christianity. I've heard stories of mothers wanting to worship with
their children in the service and they are refused (sometimes
physically) from the sanctuary unless they turn their kids over to
the nursery...even nursing babies! For those who
practice "attachment" parenting, this is a quandary for them as they
are being forced by the church to go against their parenting beliefs.
Again, I'm a bit off topic and I will come back to Pastor Frey's
comments--but it's hard for me to not equate practice with doctrine
sometimes. Seeing certain practices I saw outside of Lutheranism
beginning to be practiced in Lutheranism is hard for me...because I
wonder if doctrine is changing with the practice...does that make
sense?? It just gets very confusing.
I would have a hard time attending a church that removed children
from the service...even it was voluntary. Now, I'm not attacking
anyone--just being honest about what is going on in my head.
Sorry to go off topic a bit....I will be back later...
Shanna Wright
Pastor Frey,
OK, I'll bite - although I'm hardly a theologian so excuse me in advance for speaking somewhat ignorantly/simplistically.
I understand that by nature we are hostile to God, but does that mean every unchurched person we come into contact with, at that instant, is 100% hostile? In terms of your illustration - are all of the unchurched people we are seeking to reach irrationally antagonistic towards our gasoline? I think clearly the answer to that question is "no" - am I correct so far? (Notice, I said "unchurched", not "non-Christian")
That leaves us with both a theological question - "Why might that person not completely antagonistic at that instant", and a practical one - "what is the next step I should take with this person?"
Another point of discussion would be whether or not (and in what sense) we can distinguish between varying kinds and/or degrees of hostility:
Examples of varying kinds: Some may be hostile to the idea of any sort of (little g) god whatsoever. Some may be "religious" and "moral" but offended at the cross. Some may accept the message of the cross, but won't accept any exclusivity claims of Jesus/Christians (i.e. Jesus is A way, not THE way).
Examples of varying degrees: Some may have their minds made up and openly mock Christianity - others may be curious about Christianity and wanting to learn more.
Before I go any further, do you think this is a reasonable way to frame up the next "stage" of this discussion? Care to comment on these sub-points?
- Mark Salzwedel
Thank you so much, Mark! Boy, I needed that--in case you couldn't tell. In fact, I sincerely believe we all need this discussion, whether that need is always "felt" or not.
Sorry. I'm just so happy someone responded!
More below...
> I understand that by nature we are hostile to God, but does that mean every unchurched person we come into contact with, at that instant, is 100% hostile? In terms of your illustration - are all of the unchurched people we are seeking to reach irrationally antagonistic towards our gasoline? I think clearly the answer to that question is "no" - am I correct so far? (Notice, I said "unchurched", not "non-Christian")
>
> That leaves us with both a theological question - "Why might that person not completely antagonistic at that instant", and a practical one - "what is the next step I should take with this person?"
>
> Another point of discussion would be whether or not (and in what sense) we can distinguish between varying kinds and/or degrees of hostility:
>
> Examples of varying kinds: Some may be hostile to the idea of any sort of (little g) god whatsoever. Some may be "religious" and "moral" but offended at the cross. Some may accept the message of the cross, but won't accept any exclusivity claims of Jesus/Christians (i.e. Jesus is A way, not THE way).
>
> Examples of varying degrees: Some may have their minds made up and openly mock Christianity - others may be curious about Christianity and wanting to learn more.
>
> Before I go any further, do you think this is a reasonable way to frame up the next "stage" of this discussion? Care to comment on these sub-points?
>
Yes, I will be extremely happy to discuss the points at this stage!
What we all need to do to answer your questions at this point is to reread the passages I've quoted. These passages speak in black and white when it comes to hostility and receptivity. That is the basic blunder of Church Growth methodology. The different ways of expressing or suppressing that hostility in a person's life merely represent different ways for the sinful heart to deceptively hide its rebellion so that it does not have to face its responsibility before God. It wants to believe it is good, but the conscience, which it is constantly working to ignore, says it is not. You might think of it as Adam hiding behind different kinds of trees in the hopes of staying away from the Lord as he walks through the garden. Or think of it as different lies that Adam tells to try to deflect attention off of his own guilt. In the illustration, I pictured it in what I see as the classic, American way of deflecting the issues we have with God: We write self-help books. The guy was very good at finding ways to make the car seem better, but none of it changed the fact that his gas tank was empty. He himself seemed open to help--just not to the help he really needed.
The "sinners" of Jesus' day tried to ignore it through earthly pleasures or through wallowing in their guilt (still just another way of leaving God rather than trusting in him as a Savior). The Sadducees had their intellectual pursuits, as did the Greeks. The Pharisees, being so religious as they were, would have seemed like the most receptive of the bunch. But their form of righteousness was just another deflection of the truth God presents in his Word: We are sinners without hope if God himself doesn't do all the saving. American deflections are no different; they just have different names--e.g., false teaching, liberalism, humanistic philosophy/science, spirituality. In God's clear way of seeing things, which he conveys to his naturally lost and blind people in his Word, no one is more receptive to him or the real truth. The more we think that we can "appeal" someone into conversion, the more we drift from the real truth ourselves.
I'll stop there and see how we're doing up to this point.
In his name,
Pastor Frey
Aaron,
I want you to be happy and for everyone to be
confident that I still subscribe to the Lutheran
Confessions. Every illustration or analogy limps, and
the flat tire/out of gas ones, too, but you make an
excellent point that the nonbeliever does not and
cannot get gas. Mark's point is also noteworthy--how
many of our prospects visiting church are really
nonbelievers? Just that they might be looking for a
different octane. Is it okay to offer 87 octane in
order to get them exposed to 91 octane and hopefully
gain an appreciation for it?
I am sure that we are all struggling with the best way
to 1)reach the spiritually dead, and 2) build up the
spiritually weak. One size doesn't fit everywhere.
There is room for different methods, but not different
theology. My approach to worship in Yorba Linda may
be different from an approach used in Saginaw or
Milwaukee, or Corona, CA. But I believe that in each
of those places our WELS pastors proclaim the Word of
God and are fulfilling both of those objectives. I
know there is room for improvement in the Yorba Linda
pulpit, and value the food for thought being served
here. I hope this made Aaron smile.
Pastor Daniel M. Wagenknecht
Pastor Frey,
I had a whole post and list of questions written up, but then this thought popped up in my head and I think I'll try this simplified line of questioning (for now) instead :-)
I'll assert that its pretty clear that a person's *intellectual* resistance to Christianity can, in at least some cases, be effected through apologetics and other forms of rational argumentation - would you agree?
If so, then is there ANY VALUE AT ALL in softening a person's intellectual (or emotional, etc.) resistance to the Christianity throughout the process of Evangelizing them?
- Mark Salzwedel
I'll say briefly that speaking of an "evangelism process" is potentially misleading. The Spirit changes hearts and minds through the Word, beginning with ours. Evangelism is speaking the very words of God in the world. Would that include some apologetics where the foolishness of the sinful nature is exposing itself? Sure. Would that include truths that touch the emotions? Of course! The Word does that (I think we've all noticed).
But "is there any value in it" isn't the right question to ask if the value you're referring to has something to do with trying to find some evangelism approach that "works more often" than others. CGM theology would call that a method that is "more effective" than others, which is another reason why the term almost inherently muddies the waters. And I don't see "efficacious" helping, as the dictionary defines them as idioms and I have yet to see stated, theological distinction that usefully separates the two. I'm still hoping someone out there has that for me.
Conversion is the creating of a new heart within us. We don't have to figure out how that happens; we just need to know who does it and through what means. As I always say to my people, don't worry about how polished your "approach" is. Just tell the people in your life what you know is true and, for the sake of your Lord, the people around you and for your own soul, keep growing. Find your peace in your confidence that the Word is true--and that your church teaches the whole truth clearly and correctly. You won't need an "approach" then. You'll only need an audience.
And the Word will work.
In his name,
Pastor Frey
I believe that my old Adam is always 100% hostile
toward God. Because of that, I find myself hostile
toward God when I fall into the sins I, in my new man,
don't want to do. So, I would have to say that an
'unchurched' person and the 'non-Christian' would need
to fall into the same category of being hostile toward
God.
I don't think there are any gray areas. We're either
100% for God, or 100% against God.
Troy Yerks
Pastor Frey,
I think you're getting a bit ahead of me - and once again I apologize if I'm tripping up on some bad terminology due to my limited theological training. Instead of responding to your statements, do you mind if we "rewind" a bit? First let me try my best to clarify my main point and hopefully avoid tripping up on some "loaded" terms.
I tried to be careful to avoid the term "Evangelism process", and make it clear I was talking about the process (perhaps "outreach method" would have been a better term) we use it witnessing to any particular person (as opposed to implying levels of faith or something of that sort).
I was also careful not to presume one way or the other whether or not any method we'd use would be identical for all people we witness to or different, as if there is some sort of "magic formula".
I also didn't mean to narrow this "process" or "method" to necessarily imply some man-made strategy - for instance, for the purposes of this discussion a "method" could mean simply refer to preaching Law and Gospel.
I also avoided talking about "conversion" because we all know that conversion in the "capital C" sense of the word - that is, the changing over of a person's heart to trusting, saving faith in Jesus, is an instantaneous miracle performed by the Holy Spirit.
I also avoided (for now) postulating in what ways the Holy Spirit might be involved throughout the entire "process" I am talking about. (Those were all in my original set of questions that I never sent because I thought they would be simpler to avoid - so much for that theory!!!) :-)
OK - with those clarifications made, I don't think it can be argued that we don't use a "method" or "process" in witnessing to any particular unbeliever we come into contact with - do you agree? (Even if all we did is recite John 3:16 to them - that would be a "process" in the sense I mean to use the term)
If so, can we go back to my (fairly open-ended) question: As we witness to unbelievers, is there any value in dealing with a person's intellectual, emotional, etc. rejections to Christianity?
Or, in a more general sense, is there any value in assessing a particular spiritual "stumbling block" that person has in order to confront it? (this "confrontation" would include proclaiming a portion of Scripture applicable to the particular stumbling block.)
By "value", I mean will it play a role in even an indirect way in that person ultimately coming to faith?
Thanks.
- Mark Salzwedel
Here's 2 cents from a formerly unchurched person (read on for that):
I'm not sure that I understand your statement that we are either 100%
for God or 100% against him. It's true that our Old Adam is 100%
opposed to God. But our new man who is 100% for God, as you
correctly stated. So here's the "gray area": the two are in constant
conflict -- the struggle that Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25. It
is a struggle that will continue as long as we are in this life.
That's why Luther described us as "simultaneously saint and sinner."
(Maybe it's not quite correct to call this a "gray area," since the
old man is always completely sinful and the new man completely holy
in its inclinations and desires, but just like the black dots on a
page of white newspaper give the impression of grayscale, that's how
this old-man/new-man thing tends to take on a gray look... understand
references to "gray areas" in that sense.) This is true of all
Christians, whether or not they currently attend a church. Of course
it is possible to lose your faith and become, once again, 100%
opposed to God. But not all unchurched people are in this category.
I'll give you an example from my own life. After I graduated from
MLPS, I joined the army for 2 years. During all my stateside
training and my permanent duty in Germany, the only time I attended
church was once in basic training when my platoon was physically
marched into the chapel at Fort Leonard Wood. For 3 months in
Virginia and 18 months in Germany, I never set foot in a church,
other than the occasional cathedral tour or drinking doppelbock
beer at the local monastery. Was my faith weak at that time? Sure
it was, or I would have made a stronger attempt to make the 2 hour
taxi/train/bus trip to the closest WELS service. Did I lose my faith
and become, once again, 100% opposed to God? No. In some ways, the
time away from church made me appreciate what I had been missing all
that much more. Was I hostile to God at the time? My old man was
hostile and my new man was not hostile -- in fact my devotions and
prayers became very regular at that time.
My point is that I was effectively unchurched during that time, yet I
was not an unbeliever. We cannot absolutely equate being unchurched
with unbelief. We can also assume that many of the people within our
parish areas are unchurched believers. I run into them all the time -
- in fact I met with 2 unchurched Christians this past week (I'm
assuming that they are Christians on the basis of their informal
statements of faith). With nationwide average church attendence
dropping like a rock, I'm sure that their ranks are growing, just as
the ranks of unbelievers must certainly be growing as well. The
unchurched audience we seek for the gospel is a very mixed one --
regenerate believers, and unregenerate unbelievers.
Mike Borgwardt
Pastor Borwardt puts it well, Troy. The place where it truly enters our
conversation about the relationship of evangelism and relevancy is in
the fact that the unbeliever is 100% hostile to God and has no new
heart, whereas the believer has a new heart that is 100% for God and in
conflict with the old.
It is important to remember as well that as soon as that new heart is
born in a Christian, he is 100% a citizen of heaven and a child of God
in the Lord's eyes because of the full righteousness of Christ that is
credited to him through faith. Maturity is observable to a degree and
certainly comes and goes over time in a typical Christian's life, but,
as far as God's final assessment of the Christian is concerned, he is as
righteous as Jesus himself.
In a similar but opposite way, the unbeliever may appear to be in
various stages of "getting closer" to faith, but until God performs that
miracle in his own good time, they are 100% hostile to the one, true
God. We are called to be a witness to the truth, to make the world our
classroom, because, no matter how smart or kind or spiritual an
unbeliever may be, we are still the ones with the essential truth that
they need to hear. Everything else is just painting the car and changing
the tires.
In his name,
Pastor Frey
PS Just thought of a great example of being closer in a sense but still
being 100% hostile. Remember that teacher who asked Jesus about the
chief commandment during Holy Week? He recognized that Jesus' answer was
correct, and Jesus recognized the teacher's commentary on the matter as
"wise." Jesus even said, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." You
would think that a guy who wasn't far from the kingdom would then start
plying Jesus with questions so that he could get himself the rest of the
way there, but the "closer" he got, the more scared he became, and Mark
reports, "And from that point on, no one dared ask him any more
questions."
Mike:
I appreciated your comments:
"We cannot absolutely equate being unchurched with unbelief. We can also assume that many of the people within our parish areas are unchurched believers. I run into them all the time ...With nationwide average church attendence dropping like a rock, I'm sure that their ranks are growing, just as the ranks of unbelievers must certainly be growing as well."
I have had contact with "unchurched believers" throughout my ministry, as I'm sure most if not all of our pastors have. Like you, I can only assume they are believers based on their informal confessions of faith. Many of these unchurched believers that I have come into contact with (especially in the Bible Belt) also share the same beliefs we do when it comes to baptism, the Lord's Supper and the end times because they simply studied their Bibles without using Reformed/Baptist/Evangelical preconceived notions.
What I would be interested in discussing is this: What are some of the main reasons Christians leave organized churches and denominations in the US? I have a couple personal thoughts about this:
1) People leave their organized churches because they are not being fed spiritually anymore. I strongly believe this is why the mainline denominations are dropping in membership every year (e.g., the Episcopal Church).
2) People leave their organized churches because they are sick and tired of the politicking that goes on locally as well as in the wider denomination. We witness such politicking in the LC-MS (read Christian News lately?); but we also see it on the local level even in the WELS, especially when there are strongly felt opinions about certain non-doctrinal topics.
I'm sure there are more reasons than these, but these two are what come to my mind. So the obvious question, then, is this: How do we find these unchurched believers, bring them to a knowledge of the truth of all of God's Word, and have them become sheep in our congregational flocks? The sarcastic side in me would answer this three part question in this way: "very carefully." But does anyone have any detailed answers to help reach out and retain such people?
Thanks,
Steve Kurtzahn
At Salem's Grace Oasis we have many "unchurched believers" who come. Since it is much less formal than a church service, I assume they feel like it's not church. But Pastor Phil feeds them with the Word (no sacrament). In speaking with many of these people over the years most are fed up with the Legalism and stress on the Law. Perhaps a contributing factor to their dependencies.
I believe articles have been published recently about the rise of house churches. Perhaps the megachurch and big church trend is off-putting to people--the politics, the "bigness" in which you get lost, the "doctrinal" disputes (even over matters of adiaphora).
An interesting book to read is "I Still Believe" by Kurt Brunner. Mr. Brunner interviews people who are no longer or never attended church. In several cases people thought the "unchurched" was an unbeliever--which was a surprise to the actual person. Perhaps that's why the evangelism explosion folks came up with their two questions we've now rotely repeated about dying tonight and why God should let me in heaven. The author does conclude the book with the observation that these were all excuses that anyone can use to stay away from church, but it didn't stop himself and a score of other people from regular attendance.
I remember my vicar year visiting delinquents and a common complaint was that pastor didn't visit a mother or other relative in the hospital or something along those lines. The time frames seemed consistent, so I'm not sure if there was a pastoral problem at one point in the congregation. I found it interesting that this was now two pastors removed from the situations and a) no one seemed willing to give another pastor a chance and b) people can hold grudges for a long time.
John Hoh
I suppose its worth noting that there is also another
significant group to consider - "churched
unbelievers". While certainly they exist in all types
of churches (including ours), they are especially
prevalent in the "Megachurches" who cater to them by
design. (i.e. the first goal, and often the primary
goal, is getting them in church - not making them
believers.) To me, that's the biggest (and most
dangerous) distinctive of CG, and something I think
influences many of us more than we realize.
Mark Salzwedel
Perhaps if the stranded motorist exhibited other behavior that *seems* reasonable but is worthless might work better--instead of unleaded regular, he wants to try kerosene or diesel or anti-freeze or water. You can exhibit a range of anti-gasoline behaviors because, really, unbelievers exhibit a range of resistance to God.
Just a thought.
John Hoh
Mark-
Sorry it took so long to respond. Ministry was exceptionally full last week.
You had said: "Or, in a more general sense, is there any value in assessing a particular spiritual "stumbling block" that person has in order to confront it? (this "confrontation" would include proclaiming a portion of Scripture applicable to the particular stumbling block.) By "value", I mean will it play a role in even an indirect way in that person ultimately coming to faith?"
I believe the proper response is to say that you are making evangelism a lot more complicated than it really is. We are witnesses to the truth and wielders of a message through which God makes miracles happen. People who are completely hostile to God but blind to their true issues hear us speak the truth about the holy God being a righteous Savior. God brings his people home as we address the lies of this world with his saving truth. When you ask about the value of addressing certain "stumbling blocks" in their life, and you define "value" as the role that such address has on that person's ultimate conversion, you're asking what words/topics work to bring a person to faith and what messages aren't as "effective."
What parts of what we say will be used by the Spirit to convert someone, we will never know. I mean, we know it's the gospel parts, of course (Romans 10:17's "word of Christ), but he uses whatever he wants. We do know, however, that if we pander to the sinful nature (not only when it wants obviously immoral and perverse things, but also when it wants to believe that it is leading a God-pleasing life without Christ because of its serious efforts at morality), that does nothing. That doesn't help. How do I know? Because it's not consistent with the Word of God.
As far as apologetics is concerned, when it reveals the true folly of the sinful mind, that's truth. True is true. What will God do with it? I don't know. It can certainly become part of his "strange work" of convicting. I do know this, though: God will reach his elect. If he does it through the message I share... wow. It's hard to imagine more extraordinary joys that can be had in this world. It's worth putting all the best I absolutely can into the message: all my passion, all my joy, all my knowledge, all my everything. That's true of everything I do for God, come to think of it. How will God use all the different things I put into it? I don't know. But he loves my effort for Jesus' sake--I know that. And I know he will not let any of his people be lost.
So I won't back off of any part of the truth, because anything less is not worthy of my perfectly truthful Father. It would be lying. If I back off of it, I'm trusting in my word more than his. That's not only sinful. It just doesn't help.
That's enough for tonight. We'll see how things go.
In his name,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Steve asked:
So the obvious question, then, is this: How do we find these unchurched believers, bring them to a knowledge of the truth of all of God's Word, and have them become sheep in our congregational flocks?
I would suggest reading the book "Reopening the Back Door" by Kenneth Haugk. We just finished studying this book in our Sunday Bible class. It has great relevance to dealing with non-churched believers, and unchurched members.
Matthew Plocher
Pastor Frey,
Thanks again for responding. I guess it still seems to me that we are talking past each other a bit - maybe its just me missing a point that's clear to everyone else. At the risk of saying something heretical, I guess I'll cut to the chase and get more blunt - I'm confident I'll be corrected at whatever I assert here that is misguided (probably most of it!)
So if I'm reading you correctly your answer to my question is "I don't know"? Would you give the same answer if I gave some specific examples like:
- Is there more "value" in preaching God's Truths than in preaching false doctrine or teachings of a false religion? (2 Peter 3:16)
- Is there more "value" in preaching the Word in a person's native language rather than a language they don't understand? (1 Corinthians 14:6)
- Is there more "value" in preaching sin and grace/Law and Gospel to a convict on death row than in teaching them effective, Bible-based business principles?
- Is there more "value" in preaching clearly with illustrations and applications that are relevant to the audience to help them apprehend God's truths, rather than simply reciting Scripture passages and giving no explanations whatsoever, or giving them illustrations they can't comprehend?
Note - in none of these examples am I arguing against the doctrine of Predestination - i.e. that it is ultimately *we* who convert people, and not God. However, the Bible is just as clear in stating (as you alluded to) that God's chosen method of conversion is not without means, and that for some strange reason he always involves we "jars of clay" in the conversion process - i.e. delivering His message.
So - to me I don't see that merely asserting that one form of ministry might be more "effective" than another (as in the examples above) in any way contradicts the teachings of Scripture you cite. On one hand, we must acknowledge that ultimately God will reach all of his Elect - and in that sense he does not "depend" on us at all. On the other hand, His chosen method to reach people is through people like us proclaiming his Word - something that *seems* to depend completely on us. I think these two truths are rectified when we realize that it is God who raises up His people, gives them the proper gifts, puts them in position, and fills them with the Holy Spirit to reach out to his lost Elect.
It also seems to me that Scripture clearly teaches that some are more gifted at Evangelism than others (Ephesians 4:11), and much of Paul's writings seems to be giving us sound advice for how to be "effective" in our outreach (assimilating their cultures, etc.) Note that he also distinguishes between our approach to people who stubbornly oppose our message (who we shouldn't waste our time with), and others who are willing to listen. All of these, it seems to me, are advice in TACTICS for "effective" ministry - aren't they? So why would we be surprised if God blesses those whom he has GIFTED and who use "effective" ministry tactics in calling proportionately more of his elect?
Now - how do we recognize these gifts, evaluate tactics, and measure effectiveness - THOSE are some important questions where we run danger of going astray, and where we would often strongly disagree with the Church Growth and other "movements".
OK - I've probably said enough to get me booted out of WELS. ;-) I've been dwelling on this for a while and this is what my feeble little untrained mind has come up with as this topic has been discussed here off and on over the past couple of years - so like Pastor Frey I'd really like to see this discussion resolved and not run out of steam again.
- Mark Salzwedel
Mark S,
From one Mark (and I assume one lay person) to another, I have not been following this thread, but I have read your most recent post below. It is good for us to discuss these matters. How can we carry out the Great Commission unless we understand how to do it?
The Holy Spirit brings us to faith through the gospel message. We do not have to hear the exact words of Scripture to be saved. I can only understand English, so I have never heard the original message in Greek or Hebrew. People are converted only through the gospel in words and in baptism and Holy Communion. The saving gospel words could be those of a 5 year old child transmitting the gospel in his own words. God can and does use non-gospel messages and life situations to bring people in contact with the Gospel message. Those non-gospel things do not have any saving power at all.
God has chosen to use us to transmit the gospel message to others. We do make decisions about how to transmit that Gospel message. The fact remains that only the gospel message has the power to save. We may offer English as a Second Language (ESL), or medical care, in a effort to bring people to hear the gospel message. The English training and the medical care have no power to save. We may discuss creation/evolution with an unbeliever, and that may give us an opportunity to share the gospel. Arguing about creation, Biblical authority, or any non-gospel message may have its place, but only the gospel message saves.
Humanly speaking, some of us seem better at telling others of Jesus and what Jesus has done to save us. God though, has often used seemingly poor witnessing to bring people to faith.
I would say that it is really impossible to measure the effectiveness of how we transmit the gospel, since it can be done perfectly without bringing someone to faith. Jesus is the only human who witnessed perfectly. Most people who heard the gospel directly from Jesus' lips did not come to faith. Many Old Testament prophets had very poor conversion rates as a result of their preaching. God does not ask us to bring people to faith. God asks us to preach the gospel.
We still must use the searching of Scripture, prayer, and yes - our Christian judgment, to evaluate our evangelism efforts.
There are many outside of Confessional Lutheranism who have also not bought into the church growth movement and its non-Biblical evangelism methods. While I generally do not recommend the writings of heterodox teachers, it is well worth looking a the following article by John C. Whitcomb.
www.whitcombministries.org/Biblical_Articles/Defending_The_Bible.php
Just last Saturday my wife and I attended a lecture by Dr. Whitcomb on this very topic. While he advocates millennialism and other non-Biblical views, he makes a very strong defense of coming to salvation through the gospel message and in no other way. Dr. Whitcomb is a former Professor of Theology and Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary and was coauthor of the book "The Genesis Flood" which started the modern creationist movement.
Things that are not the gospel have no spiritual value at all unless they lead to the hearing of the gospel.
Mark Bergemann
I was a little to quick in adding the last sentence to my post below. I should have said, "Things that are not the gospel can have some spiritual value, but they have no value toward bringing a person to faith, unless they lead to a hearing of the gospel." My original wording required a rather limited definition of "spiritual value."
Mark Bergemann
Thanks for hanging in there for this important discussion, Mark (S.). And thank you, Mark (B.), for a very informative, edifying and appropriate response. Again my response is slow due to time constraints in my very busy parish, but I will still augment what Mark (B.) wrote by answering some of the questions Mark (S.) posed inline with his message below...
>
> Pastor Frey,
>
> Thanks again for responding. I guess it still seems to me that we are talking past each other a bit - maybe its just me missing a point that's clear to everyone else. At the risk of saying something heretical, I guess I'll cut to the chase and get more blunt - I'm confident I'll be corrected at whatever I assert here that is misguided (probably most of it!)
>
> So if I'm reading you correctly your answer to my question is "I don't know"? Would you give the same answer if I gave some specific examples like:
"I don't know" is the appropriate response to the question of how God is going to use my preaching of the gospel, but I believe you're on the right track by making your questions more specific. The questions are excellent.
> - Is there more "value" in preaching God's Truths than in preaching false doctrine or teachings of a false religion? (2 Peter 3:16)
There is, of course, no value in preaching false doctrine. "Distorting" the words of the apostles and prophets, as Peter says, is always done to your own destruction.
> - Is there more "value" in preaching the Word in a person's native language rather than a language they don't understand? (1 Corinthians 14:6)
This question isn't exactly comparing two preachings of the gospel. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14:6 is that you are not preaching the gospel at all if you are speaking to someone in what comes off to them as meaningless babble. The Word is the expression of truths from God in human language. Preaching (in the Greek, literally "heralding," that is, bearing news to the people) is one human being bringing that Word to another.
> - Is there more "value" in preaching sin and grace/Law and Gospel to a convict on death row than in teaching them effective, Bible-based business principles?
Why on earth would you ever teach business principles (Bible-based or not) to someone who's about to die and has no time for anything but "Repent and believe the good news?" That's just cruel!
I believe you're trying to illustrate relevancy here. The best I've heard recently on the place of relevancy in gospel ministry was what Pastor Parlow said when he was expanding on the three illustrations that came from Andy Stanley. He said:
1. We have to be aware of current felt needs.
2. We need to elevate the awareness of unfelt needs (sin, need for a Savior, real purpose in life) of our audience before we start to address these needs.
Note that you do have to be aware of felt needs. Being aware of them helps you to know what to preach to your people because the difference between their actual and felt needs points out the deceptions they have fallen under. The bigger issue, as Pastor Parlow points out, is to elevate their awareness of their true needs. That is first in our preaching. That's not because it is more "effective" or has more "value." We don't know what the Spirit may do with it. It's just the Word.
Perhaps you are struggling with Pastor Parlow's third point:
3. We need to address needs in a way that people consider helpful.
Pastor Parlow would be the one to best clarify his statement, but I believe he's referring to the fact that the truth expressed in love will, by its very nature, want to be helpful. That's not an attempt to make the message "more valuable" or "more effective." It is simply what the new heart does, being born of the Spirit as it is.
> - Is there more "value" in preaching clearly with illustrations and applications that are relevant to the audience to help them apprehend God's truths, rather than simply reciting Scripture passages and giving no explanations whatsoever, or giving them illustrations they can't comprehend?
I think Mark B. addressed this. I will say this, though: Why would I want to use illustrations they can't comprehend? That's not transmitting a message. You may have to give me an example of what you're talking about there.
Might I recite passages without comment? Sure! Why not? Is the Scripture so unclear? Would I, though? Not likely. Not with my particular audience, anyway. But it's not because they can't comprehend Scripture. God is not a bad teacher. It would be partially due to the weakness of translation (NIV being prone to use some difficult words) and also due to the false impression that many of my members have that the Scripture has some hidden meaning that they're not going to comprehend on their own. I'll say things like, "Isn't that simple? Doesn't that explain it well?" Perhaps I'll sit and ponder the clear truths with them for a while and consider the impact those truths have on our typically selfish way of viewing God and life (application).
> Note - in none of these examples am I arguing against the doctrine of Predestination - i.e. that it is ultimately *we* who convert people, and not God. However, the Bible is just as clear in stating (as you alluded to) that God's chosen method of conversion is not without means, and that for some strange reason he always involves we "jars of clay" in the conversion process - i.e. delivering His message.
>
> So - to me I don't see that merely asserting that one form of ministry might be more "effective" than another (as in the examples above) in any way contradicts the teachings of Scripture you cite. On one hand, we must acknowledge that ultimately God will reach all of his Elect - and in that sense he does not "depend" on us at all. On the other hand, His chosen method to reach people is through people like us proclaiming his Word - something that *seems* to depend completely on us. I think these two truths are rectified when we realize that it is God who raises up His people, gives them the proper gifts, puts them in position, and fills them with the Holy Spirit to reach out to his lost Elect.
Again the issue here is the word "effective." As I've said before, effective by definition requires a goal that you have in mind, and the effectiveness of something is measured in terms of how close you were to achieving your goal. On this we must be clear: My goal in preaching the truth is to preach it in accord with God's will. With this goal, my effectiveness is measured not in the number of people who come to faith, but by whether or not I represented God correctly and whether or not I heralded the message to everyone with whom I had the opportunity. If my goal is to attempt to convert as many people as possible, I don't even understand the truth myself. That's as foolish as making it my goal to have three cloudless days next week.
More below...
> It also seems to me that Scripture clearly teaches that some are more gifted at Evangelism than others (Ephesians 4:11), and much of Paul's writings seems to be giving us sound advice for how to be "effective" in our outreach (assimilating their cultures, etc.) Note that he also distinguishes between our approach to people who stubbornly oppose our message (who we shouldn't waste our time with), and others who are willing to listen. All of these, it seems to me, are advice in TACTICS for "effective" ministry - aren't they? So why would we be surprised if God blesses those whom he has GIFTED and who use "effective" ministry tactics in calling proportionately more of his elect?
>
> Now - how do we recognize these gifts, evaluate tactics, and measure effectiveness - THOSE are some important questions where we run danger of going astray, and where we would often strongly disagree with the Church Growth and other "movements".
Ephesians 4:11 says that Christ gave the church evangelists. Based on the pure, simple meaning of the words, that says that Christ gave some to be sharers of the good news. This isn't a tactic for effective outreach if your goal is to convert more people. However, if you recognize that someone has the desire and ability to share the message of Christ readily and easily, then treat that person as a gift from Christ and put them to work, as is his will.
Often someone with the ability to share the gospel readily also has gifts of charisma: affability, congeniality, humor, the ability to put people at ease. But such gifts are also used as tools to spread false doctrine, so it is important for me to keep my goal in "effective" in mind: to speak the Word truthfully and to as many as I have opportunity. The evangelist who finds a great following and the one who has a poor following both need to be judged in the same way: Is their message orthodox and are they faithful in their duties? Outside of that, you cannot judge, because you never know how many of the followers are truly people of God (the elect) and how many are hypocrites.
> OK - I've probably said enough to get me booted out of WELS. ;-) I've been dwelling on this for a while and this is what my feeble little untrained mind has come up with as this topic has been discussed here off and on over the past couple of years - so like Pastor Frey I'd really like to see this discussion resolved and not run out of steam again.
>
> - Mark
Thanks for keeping this going, Mark, and thanks for your patience with my busy schedule. I do not want to see this discussion end, either. You might try exploring the idea of "tactics for effective ministry" a little more. I would be interested in hearing what portions of Paul's writings you have in mind.
In his name
Pastor Frey
Brothers and Sisters:
I usually try to stay out of these discussions, not because they're
uninteresting to me but
because they tend to suck me in and suck up my time, but since today is --
theoretically,
at least -- my day off, I thought I'd add a quick thought.
I have sometimes observed (not necessarily in this discussion, which I'm not
going to
review in its entirety) that the people who want to talk about "effective"
methods of
outreach and evangelism and the people who want to emphasize the importance of
relying
only on the power of God in the gospel to effect conversion or spiritual growth
are too
often talking past each other.
I'd therefore like to put forth a word that you might, perhaps, find helpful in
sorting
through some of the issues: "opportunities".
As in: "We want to be effective in maximizing opportunities for people to hear
the gospel,
so that the Holy Spirit can then use those opportunities to bring people to
faith." We don't
take credit in any way for anyone's conversion, but we do take responsibility
for what God
has placed in our hands -- being good stewards of the powerful disciple-making
gift he
has entrusted to us to share with the lost and with each other.
"Stewardship" and "wisdom" are other helpful terms in this context.
"Ineffective" would not be the best term to describe a seven-part sermon series
of
beautiful law-gospel messages preached in English to a group that speaks only
Farsi --
that's poor stewardship. No opportunities have been created for the gospel to
be heard,
despite a great deal of faithful effort.
On the other hand, "effective" would not be the best term to describe a 10,000
home
canvass and visitation program that identifies 1000 unchurched families. That
effort has
not brought anyone to faith, but it has created numerous opportunities for your
congregation to present the gospel to lost souls. If there is proper follow-up
and the
message of sin and grace is actually shared, this is good stewardship of the
gospel --
whether new "members" are made or not.
Opportunities are going to vary from community to community, group to group,
congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, person to person. A need that I
recognize
and try to meet in a community or a person here may create an opportunity for me
or my
congregation to share the gospel, but doing the same thing in response to a
similar need
in your community or with a different person may have a completely different
result and
create no opportunity for the gospel. This is not a question of effectiveness
so much as a
matter of wisdom and of stewardship -- making the best use we can of what God
has
placed before us.
For instance, let's say Church A and Church B both find that they have
communities nearby
where people have fallen on rough times because the local economy has gone sour.
Both
churches recognize the "felt needs" of these communities, and both churches
decide to
meet those needs with a food program. Being just as concerned for people's
souls as their
stomachs, both churches also decide to accompany their food programs with clear
and
strong gospel messages.
Church A finds that the people of the community are very appreciative of the
food they are
given and therefore are a willing audience for the gospel message. Some people
believe
and are saved.
Church B, however, finds that the people of the community take pride in their
self-reliance
and are almost offended by the offer of help from strangers. They refuse all
assistance,
and thus never present a willing audience for the gospel message. No people are
saved
through these efforts by Church B.
Which church practiced good stewardship of both the gospel and its resources?
Both of
them -- they saw a need and put what they had to work to fill it, trusting the
gospel to
bear fruit as God determines. Both churches were "successful" and "effective"
in that they
maximized the outreach opportunities they had. In neither case was anything
wrong with
their presentation of or reliance on the gospel, and neither church could be
said to lack
God's blessing. Church A does not take the credit for converting the souls that
were saved
and Church B does not take the blame for the souls that were not saved. But the
course of
wisdom for Church A will be to continue the program and for Church B to abandon
(or
greatly alter) it, so that they can seek -- and maximize -- other opportunities
to share the
gospel.
I have been encouraged to evaluate many things this way. If my preaching
"style" (the
"package" within which I present law and gospel) is highly praised by 20% of my
congregation but leaves the other 80% of the congregation dry, I will want to
make some
changes in how I preach (not *what*, though!) so that more of God's message is
actually
heard by the congregation and given the opportunity to work in them. On the
other hand,
if it turns out that the communication and style preferences of that 20% of the
congregation actually reflects the preferences of the community we live in, my
wisest and
best choice might be something different -- again, to maximize opportunities for
the
gospel to do its work.
Similarly, 90% of WELS congregations might find door-to-door canvassing to be a
good
way to locate prospects and start a process that results in lost souls hearing
the gospel
(and hopefully going beyond that) (that's a made-up statistic). But if your
neighborhood is
extremely transient (no one stays long enough to be followed up on) or security
conscious
(no one opens the door to strangers) or overextended with jobs and activities
(no one's
ever home to answer the door) or largely of another religion ("We're
Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Catholic/Etc., go away!), it might be unwise and poor
stewardship
to put your outreach efforts, time, and resources into canvassing --
because you are creating few, if any, opportunities for the gospel.
[I will add one caveat however: not everything we do as Christians or as the
church has
the purpose of creating opportunities for the unsaved to hear the gospel, so not
everything (the Lord's Supper, for instance!) should be evaluated this way.]
I've gone on way too long. You see now why I don't let myself post more often.
:) ! I hope
this has been of some help to someone.
Your brother in Christ's service,
Jeff Samelson
Pastor Frey,
Thanks again for your insights - the more we are careful to clarify our points the more it is clear that we largely agree. I'll take a stab at highlighting a few fine points that might still be cause for disagreement.
You said:
---
"Might I recite passages without comment? Sure! Why not? Is the Scripture so unclear? Would I, though? Not likely. Not with my particular audience, anyway. But it's not because they can't comprehend Scripture. God is not a bad teacher."
---
Hmmm - why would saying that portions of Scripture call for explanation imply God is a bad teacher? That seems to me like saying in translating the Bible we are accusing God of being a bad speaker! I think there's a bit more too it than that. A good Pastor/teacher will want to help to explain foreign cultural settings, customs, etc. that are relevant in understanding several accounts. He will also want to draw on other parts of Scripture to help clarify a more difficult portion. I'm sure you (and all of our Pastors) already do these things without thinking about them, and I think there's enough importance to them that you wouldn't be doing your duty as a Pastor if you didn't - especially to an unbeliever or spiritually weak person.
It bothers me though when I see things like an article a while back in the Quarterly where the author was speaking out against the trend in some churches of giving a brief commentary on each of the Scripture readings - stating that this was a matter of not trusting God's Word to speak for itself. Is that what you are trying to say too? If so, it concerns me and I'd want to see some justification for that point of view.
Re: your point about "goals":
---
"my effectiveness is measured ... by whether or not I represented God correctly and whether or not I heralded the message to everyone with whom I had the opportunity"
---
I would say those are two vital points, but I think there might also be some other important "effectiveness measures" to consider, such as:
- Are people *understanding* the message I am trying to convey? I sometimes see the attitude that as long as what we say is correct, we have done our job. We can be too quick to jump to the conclusion that if someone doesn't understand the message, it is simply because of their sinful nature and not because we might have done a poor job in conveying the message in a manner they can comprehend. (This can involve issues like language, technical terminology, confusing illustrations, distracting cultural barriers, incorrectly assuming prior knowledge, ineffective teaching methodologies, etc.)
- Am I addressing the spiritual needs (not merely the "felt needs") of the person I am witnessing to and/or teaching? This gets back to the "teaching business principles on death row" example, which was a somewhat silly, obvious blunder. More difficult examples might be in deciding which lessons from Scripture are most needed to be emphasized to a congregation in a given locale at a given moment in history with their own special circumstances. Another difficult example might be in determining what stumbling block an unbeliever or weak believer needs to have removed at a given time. (I'd argue that solely trying to emphasize the Scriptural basis that "Jesus loves you" to someone who has been convinced that Jesus is a mythical character invented by Constantine in the 3rd Century when he revised the Bible, without addressing that person's stumbling block, would be misguided.)
- And, of course, "opportunity" might be too limiting of a term, since it is at least partially within our realm of influence to work to increase the number of opportunities we have. (This is the one aspect of church growth mentality that probably deserves not to be too quickly dismissed, IMO - you can't touch people with the Gospel if you have too strong of a "bunker mentality" and don't dialog with them.)
As for examples from Paul - things come to mind like not casting pearls to swine, shaking the dust off our feet when we are not welcomed, adapting to the local cultures customs, finding common ground to begin with in witnessing to unbelievers, reasoning with intellectuals to show them their folly, etc. All of these are really tactical examples, it seems to me.
- Mark Salzwedel
Pastor Samelson-
I appreciate your attempt to give us a different approach so that we aren't talking past each other, but I believe you have unintentionally misdirected the issue and muddied the water.
I'll focus on your Church A/B scenario.
For instance, let's say Church A and Church B both find that they have communities nearby
where people have fallen on rough times because the local economy has gone sour. Both
churches recognize the "felt needs" of these communities, and both churches decide to
meet those needs with a food program. Being just as concerned for people's souls as their
stomachs, both churches also decide to accompany their food programs with clear and
strong gospel messages.
Church A finds that the people of the community are very appreciative of the food they are
given and therefore are a willing audience for the gospel message. Some people believe
and are saved.
Church B, however, finds that the people of the community take pride in their self-reliance
and are almost offended by the offer of help from strangers. They refuse all assistance,
and thus never present a willing audience for the gospel message. No people are saved
through these efforts by Church B.
What muddies the waters? First, starving isn't just a felt need. It's a real need, and one that God tells us to fill (Eph. 4:28).
Second, your scenario could easily give the impression that giving out food (Church A) made people more willing to listen to the gospel. I realize that emails are more hastily written than papers are, and we would have certainly cleared this up without issue at a pastors conference, were it presented there. I'm certain what you meant was that Church A happened to gain an audience, not that they became more receptive to the gospel.
Pastor Samelson has been trained to recognize this distinction, of course, just as I was. We were in school together. But clarifying it for everyone reading is important. The question really is what "value" is there in doing the food bank. Answer: It's valuable because it is God-pleasing. It is a work of faith done in accord with his will by the two congregations. Is it valuable in converting someone? No. God may use it to bring someone into contact with the gospel, but if he hadn't used that, he'd have used something else. Plus he brought lots of people who were not converted. Food didn't make the difference. The gospel did.
All this means that we don't choose our programs on the basis of how many people join our church. We will do the things that we are called to do, and God will do his work of conversion through that portion of our work that is sharing the gospel.
I afraid that you may have muddied the waters further, Pastor Samelson, by writing:
Which church practiced good stewardship of both the gospel and its resources? Both of
them -- they saw a need and put what they had to work to fill it, trusting the gospel to
bear fruit as God determines. Both churches were "successful" and "effective" in that they
maximized the outreach opportunities they had. In neither case was anything wrong with
their presentation of or reliance on the gospel, and neither church could be said to lack
God's blessing. Church A does not take the credit for converting the souls that were saved
and Church B does not take the blame for the souls that were not saved. But the course of
wisdom for Church A will be to continue the program and for Church B to abandon (or
greatly alter) it, so that they can seek -- and maximize -- other opportunities to share the
gospel.
The success of the program ought not be measured in terms of people who heard the gospel. That teaches the people that we need to use bait to save people. This isn't about "People always come to church for the wrong reason anyway, so let's just worry about how to get them here so we have an audience." First, people don't always come to church for the wrong reason (the unchurched believers we recently spoke of). Further, it is dishonest of us to use their bad motivation to get them to church (2Co 4:2). If they come for the wrong reason, we correct them. We show them their sin. We don't commend them. Rather (same verse), "by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."
"Maximizing opportunities" works in a biblical sense, so long as it means that you always share the Word, every opportunity you get, as you do the work God has laid before you. But appealing to natural sensibilities in order to draw a crowd and then throwing in some gospel is dishonest.
I have been encouraged to evaluate many things this way. If my preaching "style" (the
"package" within which I present law and gospel) is highly praised by 20% of my
congregation but leaves the other 80% of the congregation dry, I will want to make some
changes in how I preach (not *what*, though!) so that more of God's message is actually
heard by the congregation and given the opportunity to work in them. On the other hand,
if it turns out that the communication and style preferences of that 20% of the
congregation actually reflects the preferences of the community we live in, my wisest and
best choice might be something different -- again, to maximize opportunities for the
gospel to do its work.
Applying these principles to your preaching makes it even harder to see the truth here clearly--at least, it does when you are talking about the "package" you use either "being praised" or leaving people "dry." What would make it clearer is if you talked about the congregation judging what you said on the basis of law and gospel and reporting back to you whether or not what they heard you say was faithful to God's truth.
I would like to know if I'm talking to my people in a way they are used to. I will make adjustments as necessary because that is within my ability to do and I want to put my best into gospel preaching. But that is not nearly as hard (nor as important) as speaking in the way in which God would have me speak.
Remember, everyone, that this is not a public flogging of Pastor Samelson's message. It is a clarification, and one that I know my brother, who believes as I do, will appreciate. This is a clarification of what he said that distinguishes what he is saying from what false teachers sometimes say that might sound similar. Today's Church-Growth-types (Warren, Hunter, Stanley) will talk about the gospel being able to convert the whole world--if only we are able to figure out the way that God is reaching people through their culture today. Think of Warren's "riding the wave" illustration and take a look again at what he is saying. He believes that God gets people to faith in great, big people movements, which is classic Church Growth theology. "Vision is the ability to see opportunities within your current circumstances" (Purpose-Driven Church, p. 28). When Warren lists the things that taught him most to be a pastor, he lists the New Testament and church history, but then says, "My greatest source of learning, however, has been watching what God has done in the church I pastor" (ibid., 17-18). Yes, that's after he lists the New Testament. He believes churches always grow, so long as the pastor keeps them healthy (13-16). He says that "Our job as church leaders, like experienced surfers, is to recognize a wave of God's Spirit and ride it. It is not our responsibility to make waves but to recognize how God is working in the world and join him in the endeavor" (p. 14, emphasis his). That is his nod to God's power, which is "ineffectual" if church leaders don't figure out the new way that God is working today.
Pastor Samelson, I know, will agree that he does not want his words to in any way be understood to say what this false teacher with a distorted view of the means of grace is saying. That is why I am making this clarification.
Gotta move. I could say more, but that's probably enough to keep things going anyway.
In his name,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
Pastor Frey,
You said:
"Is it valuable in converting someone? No. God may use it to bring someone into contact with the gospel, but if he hadn't used that, he'd have used something else."
I think this statement "muddies the waters" a bit too. You could use the same logic to argue on the basis of predestination that we don't have to bother with evangelism at all, or that the Means of Grace are not "valuable" either - but of course Paul makes it clear that in that sense God "depends" on us to participate in the work of conversion (little "c").
On the other hand, you are right that there is no need to deviate from God's methods and put undo emphasis/pressure on ourselves to be "clever" or "catch waves" - in that sense God calls us to humility and has us remember that He is in charge and that he won't lose any of his elect because we failed to come up with a new catchy church slogan. Participating in Evangelism to lost souls is a privilege for us - God is not at our mercy to save His elect. I assume thats the point you were trying to make.
- Mark Salzwedel
Ok, I just got a little more time for responses (but it's running out fast). Here are some responses for you, Mark:
You said:
----------
Hmmm - why would saying that portions of Scripture call for explanation imply God is a bad teacher?
----------
The truth is that I'm with you on the Quarterly article that questioned the value of providing some context to your readings. I do that regularly. My point was that, on the other hand, I need not be afraid to let the Bible speak for itself either. The Bible is its own interpreter, and it doesn't do a bad job. That's why I said what I said.
Next, you listed some other "effectiveness measures" a person might consider beyond whether or not I heralded the pure truth to everyone with whom I had the opportunity.
----------
- Are people *understanding* the message I am trying to convey? I sometimes see the attitude that as long as what we say is correct, we have done our job. We can be too quick to jump to the conclusion that if someone doesn't understand the message, it is simply because of their sinful nature and not because we might have done a poor job in conveying the message in a manner they can comprehend. (This can involve issues like language, technical terminology, confusing illustrations, distracting cultural barriers, incorrectly assuming prior knowledge, ineffective teaching methodologies, etc.)
----------
I believe I addressed this in my response to Pastor Samelson. These are simple things that are easily resolved through contact with people--at least, they are for a person who meets the biblical qualification of being "apt to teach." A person who speaks to their confirmation class in the language of the dogmatics classroom needs to be chastised--unless, of course, he holds a unique talent for getting his point across using that language, which some men do. If he's not apt to teach, though, he's not qualified for the public ministry of the Word. If you believe such a pastor is purposefully being unclear, then we really have a problem, don't we? If he's just not willing to accept your help to improve his class according to his abilities, point him to Proverbs 12:1.
----------
- Am I addressing the spiritual needs (not merely the "felt needs") of the person I am witnessing to and/or teaching? This gets back to the "teaching business principles on death row" example, which was a somewhat silly, obvious blunder. More difficult examples might be in deciding which lessons from Scripture are most needed to be emphasized to a congregation in a given locale at a given moment in history with their own special circumstances. Another difficult example might be in determining what stumbling block an unbeliever or weak believer needs to have removed at a given time. (I'd argue that solely trying to emphasize the Scriptural basis that "Jesus loves you" to someone who has been convinced that Jesus is a mythical character invented by Constantine in the 3rd Century when he revised the Bible, without addressing that person's stumbling block, would be misguided.)
----------
I think you could have just stopped at "Am I addressing spiritual needs," and you'd have been fine. The need of the person who thinks that Jesus was made up by Constantine is to see that he is much more foolish than he makes you out to be (follow that? (-; ). Strong faith is not thrown by such foolishness. It's more than happy to listen and, at least to some degree, answer simple historical errors. But it also knows that preaching Christ crucified and pointing out sin in accord with the truth are powerful weapons that save those who believe. It always comes back to faithful, loving preaching.
----------
- And, of course, "opportunity" might be too limiting of a term, since it is at least partially within our realm of influence to work to increase the number of opportunities we have. (This is the one aspect of church growth mentality that probably deserves not to be too quickly dismissed, IMO - you can't touch people with the Gospel if you have too strong of a "bunker mentality" and don't dialog with them.)
----------
"Bunker mentality"? Are you talking about the same thing as Pastor Parlow's "Us Four, No More, Shut the Door" attitude? People who think that way don't need more Church Growth books. They need to be told that their attitude is faithless and sinful. If I knew someone like that, I'd have to tell them what I just told you. If that were me, I hope someone would hit me upside the head with the truth.
Your examples from Paul...
----------
As for examples from Paul - things come to mind like not casting pearls to swine, shaking the dust off our feet when we are not welcomed, adapting to the local cultures customs, finding common ground to begin with in witnessing to unbelievers, reasoning with intellectuals to show them their folly, etc. All of these are really tactical examples, it seems to me.
----------
I get the pearls reference and the one about shaking dust from your feet (from the gospels), although I'm not sure what makes that tactical as opposed to simply being faithful to the truth.
You might expand on adapting to local customs a bit. That sounds interesting.
As for finding common ground and reasoning with intellectuals, I see only one common ground that Paul established with unbelievers, and that's appealing to conscience. SometimesI think, he also made use of common sense on the way to appealing to the conscience, although nothing comes screaming to mind. Jesus certainly did that when he used tower-building and war-making as examples of counting the cost of following him. It's only common sense to understand beforehand the difficulty of completing a monumental task. There's another place where I would find it interesting to hear you expand a bit on how that differs from being faithful in your preaching of the Word of Truth.
In his name,
Aaron Frey
I actually struggled with whether or not to say it just that way, Mark, but it sounds like you understood me perfectly. You just can't carry that over to the means of grace because there God has told us exactly the role that it plays. It is the power of God for our salvation. Faith comes from hearing the message. The logic being employed is to look at what God says about it and to let his Word on it stand. Acts of love do not convert others, even though they are commanded. The use of the means of grace does convert, and their use is also commanded.
So, I think we actually do understand each other here. God always uses the means of grace to convert someone. What means will he use to bring the means to them? He can use any that he wants, and I trust that he will. I just want to focus myself on what he tells me and on doing his will, or, to borrow from the Word made flesh, I concern myself with "his kingdom and his righteousness."
In his name,
Aaron
Dear Church and Changers:
I consider Pastor Frey a friend and have the greatest respect both for his
scholarship and his passion for doctrinal purity.
However, as I began reading his response, I had trouble seeing what I had
written in his
response to me. Perhaps I should have simply taken the day completely off.
Anyway, as I know I will not have time to sort out or untangle things this week,
if and
where I have indeed "muddied the water", please accept Pr. Frey's corrections
and
clarifications -- or better yet, just forget and delete the original.
Thank you.
In Christ's service,
Jeff Samelson
Pastor Frey,
Thanks again for your response. I think this thread might be spanning into too many topics to cover in one thread, so permit me to isolate them in seperate threads.
Here's a portion of our exchange:
***********************
- Are people *understanding* the message I am trying to convey? I sometimes see the attitude that as long as what we say is correct, we have done our job. We can be too quick to jump to the conclusion that if someone doesn't understand the message, it is simply because of their sinful nature and not because we might have done a poor job in conveying the message in a manner they can comprehend. (This can involve issues like language, technical terminology, confusing illustrations, distracting cultural barriers, incorrectly assuming prior knowledge, ineffective teaching methodologies, etc.)
----------
I believe I addressed this in my response to Pastor Samelson. These are simple things that are easily resolved through contact with people--at least, they are for a person who meets the biblical qualification of being "apt to teach." A person who speaks to their confirmation class in the language of the dogmatics classroom needs to be chastised--unless, of course, he holds a unique talent for getting his point across using that language, which some men do. If he's not apt to teach, though, he's not qualified for the public ministry of the Word. If you believe such a pastor is purposefully being unclear, then we really have a problem, don't we? If he's just not willing to accept your help to improve his class according to his abilities, point him to Proverbs 12:1.
***********************
I guess I'm not clear if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. Whether or not they are "easy to resolve" is not in question here, although my perception is that it isn't at all easy for most.
On one hand you refer to the Biblical directive that a Pastor have the particular gift of being "apt to teach". To me that implies that there is something about that skill which is expected to be put to use, and which is of "value" in carrying out that office. Do you think I'm misguided here?
I don't understand what the idea of purposely being unclear would have to do with the effect (in any sense of the term) on hearers. Paul made it clear that the sincerity of the preacher is not of any consequence to those who he preaches to. (Philippians 1:16-18)
- Mark Salzwedel
Here's our exchange:
***********
----------
- Am I addressing the spiritual needs (not merely the "felt needs") of the person I am witnessing to and/or teaching? This gets back to the "teaching business principles on death row" example, which was a somewhat silly, obvious blunder. More difficult examples might be in deciding which lessons from Scripture are most needed to be emphasized to a congregation in a given locale at a given moment in history with their own special circumstances. Another difficult example might be in determining what stumbling block an unbeliever or weak believer needs to have removed at a given time. (I'd argue that solely trying to emphasize the Scriptural basis that "Jesus loves you" to someone who has been convinced that Jesus is a mythical character invented by Constantine in the 3rd Century when he revised the Bible, without addressing that person's stumbling block, would be misguided.)
----------
I think you could have just stopped at "Am I addressing spiritual needs," and you'd have been fine. The need of the person who thinks that Jesus was made up by Constantine is to see that he is much more foolish than he makes you out to be (follow that? (-; ). Strong faith is not thrown by such foolishness. It's more than happy to listen and, at least to some degree, answer simple historical errors. But it also knows that preaching Christ crucified and pointing out sin in accord with the truth are powerful weapons that save those who believe. It always comes back to faithful, loving preaching.
***************
Yup, I follow that and I agree, and strong faith obviously is not thrown by such foolishness - but "strong faith" isn't what we're discussing here.
Once again, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my main point. You tell me if I would have stopped, I would have been fine. I take that to mean I'm not fine, but I'm confused as to where your disagreement lies. Does "faithful, loving preaching" include discerning which portions of Scripture to convey to a person or congregation at a given point? If so, then I think we agree that would be another "effectiveness measure" - correct?
And - full disclosure here - I suppose I must count myself amongst those with "weak faith" - perhaps at times all of us fall into that category. For instance, the above illustration was not something that happened to ever cause me any spiritual stress, but that is because I knew enough about Biblical history to know it was foolishness - not because my faith was necessarily at such a high level that something like this *couldn't* have bothered me. I know many "strong" WELS Christians who were initially disturbed by the DaVinci code when it came out, for instance. What gave them comfort was not citing Bible passages, but conveying historical facts. Was that just an aberration?
Will correcting historical, scientific, etc. obstacles directly make a believer out of an unbeliever - of course not - only the Gospel does that. Can those same corrections help to remove obstacles to that person hearing the Gospel with a "softened" heart - I think perhaps that it a source of disagreement on this list - at this point I am convinced that they can but I think you disagree - is that correct?
- Mark Salzwedel
Our excerpt was:
***************
And, of course, "opportunity" might be too limiting of a term, since it is at least partially within our realm of influence to work to increase the number of opportunities we have. (This is the one aspect of church growth mentality that probably deserves not to be too quickly dismissed, IMO - you can't touch people with the Gospel if you have too strong of a "bunker mentality" and don't dialog with them.)
----------
"Bunker mentality"? Are you talking about the same thing as Pastor Parlow's "Us Four, No More, Shut the Door" attitude? People who think that way don't need more Church Growth books. They need to be told that their attitude is faithless and sinful. If I knew someone like that, I'd have to tell them what I just told you. If that were me, I hope someone would hit me upside the head with the truth.
*************************
I wasn't meaning anything spiteful - just making the point that if our church's Outreach strategy is simply to wait for unbelievers to come into our doors so we can preach to them, we aren't living out the Great Commission. Of course, none of us (that I'm aware of) "close the doors" to that extent, but neither do any of us come close to living out the Great Commission to the extent that the Law would command us to. So - there's always room for improvement, lest we get comfortable that we are witnessing to the people that come on our doorstep but no others. That was my simple point, poorly stated.
As for what I meant about not dismissing Church Growth - I mean that what is good and right about the movement is their motivation to seek the lost - even at the expense of making themselves uncomfortable. The fact that they recognize that they can't reach people they don't come into contact with, and therefore are willing to exhert a tremendous amount of effort into building bridges to the lost is commendable. What *isn't* commendable is that to varying degrees they sacrifice the very Means of Grace that will change those people's hearts as an exchange for getting them to come and sit in their church buildings (to the detriment of both the unbelievers and the believers in their midst).
- Mark Salzwedel
Branching into new topics becomes a problem quickly with topics like this!
I was actually agreeing with you on that one, although it seems we could also very easily clarify this topic better.
People argue about what exactly "apt to teach" means. If you ask me, I think that the various thoughts on preaching and ministry naturally lend themselves to the understand that aptitude to teach is all about being able to take a concept and bring it to the level of the person you're presenting to. So, no, it's not easy for some to work on those areas. However, it is something that a person with the aptitude to teach can do.
Your point about the sincerity of the preacher being irrelevant to what the Lord accomplishes is a good one to add. The Lord accomplishes what he wants in the hearer. The person that it does make a difference to, however, is the preacher. Insincerity, like false teaching, is a sin. If he dies in that sin, he goes to hell. So what "value" is sincerity? None, as far as conversion of the hearer. The message (and what God decides to do with it) is the important thing. Likewise being purposefully unclear is a sin. So is failing to work at being clear. So is putting a poor effort into your sermon. However, the level of success or failure in fighting those sins, while it may have a bearing on a person's ability to carry out the duties of his ministry, still doesn't change the number of people in heaven or hell in the end.
So what value is success against these sins, that is, what value is there in being more sincere, putting forth more effort, bringing out my best for each and every sermon? It is of value to me, and it is of value to my Father as he takes joy in me for Jesus' sake. Does it have value in converting more people? There's no way for me to determine that, because only the message converts. If anything else that has happened gets someone into the message's audience, that's the Lord's business, and it is not for me to try to quantify it--especially since those things tend to gather a crowd whether the message is truly preached or not. So, then, I will continue to see the message and the message alone as the only power of conversion. Everything else is to God's glory, their exact role in conversion remaining something that the Lord holds his own counsel on.
In his name,
Aaron Frey
Our exchange:
*************************
----------
As for examples from Paul - things come to mind like not casting pearls to swine, shaking the dust off our feet when we are not welcomed, adapting to the local cultures customs, finding common ground to begin with in witnessing to unbelievers, reasoning with intellectuals to show them their folly, etc. All of these are really tactical examples, it seems to me.
----------
I get the pearls reference and the one about shaking dust from your feet (from the gospels), although I'm not sure what makes that tactical as opposed to simply being faithful to the truth.
You might expand on adapting to local customs a bit. That sounds interesting.
As for finding common ground and reasoning with intellectuals, I see only one common ground that Paul established with unbelievers, and that's appealing to conscience. SometimesI think, he also made use of common sense on the way to appealing to the conscience, although nothing comes screaming to mind. Jesus certainly did that when he used tower-building and war-making as examples of counting the cost of following him. It's only common sense to understand beforehand the difficulty of completing a monumental task. There's another place where I would find it interesting to hear you expand a bit on how that differs from being faithful in your preaching of the Word of Truth.
*****************************
In the two examples you cite, I mean that Paul is giving advice as to how to best spend our Evangelism time - that isn't *opposed* to being faithful to the Truth, but it also strikes me as being *more* than just being faithful. (Being faithful without Paul's tactics might mean camping outside a hardened unbeliever's doorstep, preaching Scriptural truths over a loudspeaker, and insisting "I love you too much to stop preaching God's truth to you" - but that's clearly not what Paul advises us to do.)
Local customs - Paul observed the Jewish law when amongst the Jews, he avoided it amongst the Gentiles. He earned his own money making tents so he would not be seen as trying to take advantage of the locals. He emphasized the need for upright character soas not to dilute the message he was presenting, etc.
Common ground - when Paul preached to Jews, he started with the OT Scriptures and showed how Jesus fulfilled them. With Gentiles, he started with their natural knowledge of a Creator God and of their consciences towadrs sin, and showed how this Creator God had come to earth to pay for the guilt their conscienses bore witness to. Once again, this doesn't "differ from faithful preaching of the Truth", but it is more. (Paul could have Faithfully preached the truth to the Gentiles by appealing to the OT Law too, but he didn't choose that tactic.)
This is a big issue today because our culture has recently made a drastic shift towards Biblical illteracy. That means assumptions we could make in witnessing to unbelievers one or two generations ago are no longer valid. (I'm speaking in generalities of course - there are still many unbelievers and unchurched believers withenough knowledge of the Bible that you can start there, but the percentage is quickly declining).
- Mark Salzwedel
Mark,
Please explain the thought about Phil 1:16-18 and
Paul. I'm not following it. It seems that Paul is
happy that Christ is being preached no matter how.
I'm not seeing any connection here to Paul's joy over
those "hearing" the message. The context seems to
point to Christ and let him show out.
Trying to follow the discussion,
Troy Yerks
Troy,
Sorry for my part in "muddying". My point was exactly as you stated - whether or not a person is *intentionally* being clear or unclear is of no consequence to the hearer - what matters to the hearer is the message - regardless of motive.
- Mark Salzwedel
Interesting about the food bank. I wonder, though, as we let our faith shine in our works--do we establish food banks and have other social needs programs merely to "share the Gospel" (i.e., swell the ranks of members)? Or do we have these simply to help a neighbor in need and do more than say, "May God bless you"?
I know, this opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it? What is the "mission" of our food pantries, parish nurses, even church libraries? Do we expect something in return? Do we have a "giving" spirit or is our "giving spirit" a tool that can be seen as such?
We are told that our faith compels us to help those in need. We are never given a promise that new members or converts will result. God just says "do it, it's pleasing to me." I'm not sure trying to wedge some "gospel" into the equation is the answer (i.e., tracts with each bag of groceries or a requirement that the people attend a worship service or Bible class to get a bag.
A Salem we've had Grace Oasis for about 12 years, a food pantry even longer. We have addressed other needs in the community. The numbers--on Sunday morning--don't reflect the efforts. Yet some still insist on the conditions and have become discouraged and I hear "those people are like this and that's all they want." Hmm, maybe let the Lord work? Maybe by displaying our love, given us by God who loves each of us wretched, miserable train wrecks, is the Gospel message that needs to be proclaimed?
BTW, Grace Oasis averages about 50 people each Friday evening for fellowship and a Bible study/praise session. I would say that God is working through his Word in ways we cannot comprehend or even imagine.
We also often forget that growth is slow, not instantaneous. When my son was born I didn't expect him to walk right away. He also grows in his knowledge of the world and in the Word even as he grows physically. Just because someone is or appears "grown-up" doesn't mean that there isn't growth. Sometimes (often-times?) we are just too impatient to allow that growth to follow it's/God's timelines. It also often means we need to get more involve and "mentor" those new to the faith. You know, that whole "priesthood of believers" mantra we have the Lutheran church.
John Hoh
Amen, brother John!! Let’s just “do it, please our God, plant seeds (not wedge them) and trust our Lord to grow the crop. Blessings on Grace Oasis, St. Peter outreach, Lutherans for Life pregnancy centers and all others who, in love for their Savior, “do it.”
Vicki Raddant
All,
I've been meaning to weigh in on this since Pastor Frey's initial message; this morning it's time for good intentions to become reality.
First, it seems to me there have been 2 categories of examples or "what if's" that need to be distinguished. One is the old example of speaking the Word in someone's language. Paul deals with that sort of thing in 1 Cor. 14:6-19. The upshot is that if I speak to you in Mongolian, I'm not speaking God's Word to you at all. My words may edify me; they cannot edify you. The Word of God is not sounds and syllables which work like a magic incantation. The Word of God is the message God wants communicated. So if I speak to you in English, I'm speaking God's Word to you, even though the originals are Hebrew and Greek. But if I speak Mongolian, you don't hear God's Word; you only hear sounds.
This is not a matter of "effective" or "ineffective" proclamation. It's a matter of whether I'm proclaiming the Word to you at all. In the melodramatic example, if I talk in Mongolian, whether you are rabidly anti-gasoline or not simply doesn't matter. You have no clue what I'm talking about. God calls us to preach/proclaim the Gospel faithfully. That means accurately communicating to people what God wants to tell them. On a (very) slightly less obvious level, that also means using words, terms, illustrations, etc. that communicate instead of obfuscate. One can use a bunch of English words and still fail to communicate the Word of God. On the whole, I think our pastors and people understand that and strive to speak and witness in English instead of Churchish.
I know the foreign language example is used with good intentions, to say, "See, we do things to make sure the Word has a chance to do its work. We should also be able to agree on other ways to make our work more effective." But the example doesn't work very well, because it's an example of not preaching the Word to someone at all.
The second category is sometimes called "pre-evangelism." Maybe we can define that as doing things to "get people in the door," or "get people to stop and listen to what we have to say," or "establish common ground with someone."
This, in my judgment, is much different. And it's why the word "effective" gives many in our circles such heartburn (I'm one of them). "Effective," in evangelical/protestant literature, isn't only talking about clear, faithful, meaning-full communication. It's talking about their false doctrine of conversion. "Effective" preaching is preaching which creates a primarily emotional/subjective response, and that emotional/subjective state of mind is where people can make their decision for Christ. Everything about protestant/evangelical methodology flows from that false understanding, from fire and brimstone sermons ("Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God"), the "anxious bench" (used in tent revivals to let someone stew over their sins for a while until they're "good and repentant" before announcing any Gospel), the foot-stomping or schmaltzy/melodramatic nature of much of the music, denying the power of the Sacraments (which would make someone look outside his own experiences), etc. etc. etc. The Pentecostal Movement is the ultimate expression of this kind of thinking ... the Spirit's work becomes totally subjective "in my heart," completely divorced from the Means of Grace. Speaking in tongues no one can understand is the work of the Spirit that can create or strengthen my faith, even though it communicates nothing!!
That's why I wish we'd simply stop using this term "effective." We seem to have the idea we can redefine words to mean whatever we want them to. So we say that when we use the term "effective," we don't mean that stuff. I'd ask that everyone to ask whether that's a good way to communicate. "Effective" has a particular meaning when discussing methods of ministry. Even its basic, non-theological, dictionary meaning would include both the thing that is done, and the result or effect it has. But that is precisely what Scripture repeatedly tells us to keep distinct -- we are to speak God's Word faithfully; the results or effects are up to him alone.
One simple suggestion might help. When we talk about evangelism, one group of people won't be converted because they don't understand the Gospel we present. Their sinful nature does the old bob-and-weave, and Satan succeeds in using our weakness or (at least as often) their spiritual blindness. We may or may not have failed these people. Another group will either reject or be converted through our message because they do understand the Gospel. We have not failed these people at all, regardless of the outcome.
Isn't our objective simply to make the first group as small, and the second as large as possible?
Down From Soapbox (for the moment anyway),
Dennis Rardin
Dennis,
Thanks a lot for helping to clear up the mess I've created. :-) You said:
"On a (very) slightly less obvious level, that also means using words, terms, illustrations, etc. that communicate instead of obfuscate. One can use a bunch of English words and still fail to communicate the Word of God"
This is one of the main points I was trying to make - and probably my sloppy vocabulary has caused "obfuscation" of my own. :-)
But - doesn't this go to show that sharing the Word of God is not a binary activity - i.e. that there are shades of gray in how accurately and how clearly I present His Word. And - doesn't that in turn point to skills, opportunities for measurement & improvement, etc?
FYI - I'm in complete agreement with your warnings about emotionalism, etc - I assure you that's not at all what I had in mind. I promise to avoid the term from now on, but I guess what I was speaking to before could have been more clearly asked: "Can we measure how "effective" we are at *pre-evangelism*, and is there any "value" in "effective pre-evangelism"? Does that help?? (And what are your answers?)
Thanks!
- Mark Salzwedel
Hi Mark,
It's not your sloppy vocabulary. ;-) "Effective," "pre-evangelism," and the rest have been around for a while now.
A few comments:
But - doesn't this go to show that sharing the Word of God is not a binary activity - i.e. that there are shades of gray in how accurately and how clearly I present His Word. And - doesn't that in turn point to skills, opportunities for measurement & improvement, etc?
Yes. "Clear communication" is easier to say than to do; it's both a spiritual gift ("apt to teach") and a skill to be honed. I'm not really sure how to measure how well I communicated the Gospel on any particular occasion. But if someone else is there who gives me some constructive criticism later, part of being faithful is to take that to heart.
It's also easy to spend too much time, effort and worry on the matter. Paul didn't go to Corinth with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power. Moses whined about his lack of communication skills. Finally the Lord got downright angry. "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say." Part of the Lord's purpose in picking us (of all people) is so that people's faith "might not be built on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Our failures to communicate perfectly are also part of the promise that "'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' I will therefore boast all the more about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
It's also worth remembering that the Gospel isn't rocket science. It's very simple. My 6-year-old can confess it just fine. It's just impossible to believe it without the Spirit's power working faith. The Word of the Eternal God is not so utterly fragile that it can't or won't succeed unless I speak it "just so." It's more like a lion -- the best thing to do is let it roar. :-)
I also think it's all too easy to forget that all of this is supernatural. When I speak the Gospel, I do so because I am "Spirit-possessed." The Spirit is there, within me, borrowing my mouth and words to speak his message. When someone "gets it," that's supernatural. When someone confesses and believes the Gospel, Easter has happened all over again. The Gospel is "God's power for salvation." Those words are divine power of the same caliber as those which called the universe into being.
Can we measure how "effective" we are at *pre-evangelism,* and is there any "value" in "effective pre-evangelism"?
Can we measure how effective we are at pre-evangelism? I don't think we can; why will become clear shortly. But let's back up. (And again, I write by way of conversation.) What is "pre-evangelism?" Again, the term is protestant/evangelical, and again it's part of their false doctrine of conversion. "Pre-evangelism" in that world is, again, getting people in the right frame of mind and heart, before we tell them about Jesus, so that when we finally do they'll be ready to make their decision for Christ. Again, when we end up borrowing and trying to "purify" a term like that, I ask myself, "Is talking this way wise? Is there a simpler way to get at it that doesn't carry that baggage along?"
What do WELS folks mean by "pre-evangelism?" Crudely put, it's being nice or doing things for someone to "get them to listen," either on a personal or an organizational level. Why must we call it pre-evangelism to find it within us to do good? Why not just do what is good, and let God bless it as he wills? "All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another." "Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." "Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you the reason for the hope you have." (If they're asking why I'm so hope-full, I must be speaking and acting like I have a lot of hope!) If we're bad at "pre-evangelism," doesn't that simply mean we're not loving people as Jesus wills? Doesn't that mean it's sin, and that being faithful means condemning my sin(s), and speaking the Gospel through which the Spirit works repentance and new life?
That, in my mind, is a much clearer and more honest way to deal with our loveless attitudes and resulting inaction. If we call it "pre-evangelism," I think we are probably short-circuiting the Savior's message, "The kingdom of heaven is near. Repent and believe the Gospel." I think we run the risk of doing good so that we get to feel better about how good we are at evangelism, instead of serving our Savior with joyful abandon and living life as an act of worship. "Pre-evangelism" is a lot easier than "Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God." :-)
Regarding the role our works play in "gaining us an audience" or [fill in similar expression] ... God in his grace uses each and every event in the lives of his elect to serve his saving purpose. He even uses people's sins as part of his plan for bringing them to and keeping them in the faith! This is holy ground; we could all stand to "take off our sandals" when we think about it. "Oh how deep are the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out. For from him and to him and through him are all things ... Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -- this is your spiritual worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -- his good, pleasing and perfect will." Yes, absolutely, God uses all things in our lives -- every last one, before and after we come to faith -- to ensure that law and gospel strike the heart in his good time and way. "All things" certainly includes the acts of love Christians do for all people.
I'd humbly suggest that we not put strings on our spiritual worship by programming it as "pre-evangelism." After all, "pre-evangelism" is only "effective" if the following "evangelism" is "successful," isn't it? How else could we measure it? And if we measure the results to decide if we're doing it right ... well, Jesus did all of it right, and after three years his ministry wasn't remarkably successful by any human standard.
I think we need to work harder on what He gives us to do, and trust harder that he will do what he has promised without us peeking over his shoulder. Just do it! Leave those high and holy matters to him -- that's his responsibility and his promise, and he'll carry it out in ways we could never imagine. Our responsibility is to carry out our calling as his children -- do good! Love! Serve! Give! Speak! The Lord will use those acts of worship as he wills to accomplish what he desires.
Clambering off of soapbox again,
Dennis the Wordy
Dennis,
Thanks for the "wordy" reply - there's a lot of great meat here and I'd like some time to chew on it.
Just a couple quick clarifications for now, though.
First, in my own defense, I only adapted terms like "pre-evangelism" after someone else on this list directed me to. Seems I can't make everyone on the list happy. ;-) My point isn't to whine, but to illustrate this is precisely an example of where we all have plenty of room to grow in "avoiding obfuscation" - to each other much less to the lost!! :-)
Secondly - as to "measuring pre-evangelism" - apart from bad terminology, what I had in mind was not to measure results (i.e. conversions), but things like getting feedback on how well we are being understood, etc. (Or, in the case of an outreach program, how many people are we reaching with the message, etc.)
Thanks!
- Mark Salzwedel
To add to what Dennis is saying, when we read Paul's letters today, we see "theological words." When Paul wrote his letters he used sports terms, common legal terms, terms of commerce, etc., that the people he interacted with used. In describing the protection we get from God he used the picture of a soldier's armor, a picture before him under house arrest as well recognizable to his audience in a town of retired soldiers.
The form of English is important in the style--King James vs. modern, 25 cent words vs. $25 words, etc.
We also need not forget that God works to create faith through his grace despite us. Even our best efforts and intentions are flawed. But somehow God uses our "potlach" efforts to create and strengthen faith.
John Hoh
Dennis,Pastor Frey, & others,
I'm gathering everyone is tired of this discussion, but since I said I'd get back to you after chewing on it for a while I thought I should at least be good to my word.
Maybe I'm getting tired of it too - maybe its just my mushy brain but I'm really having a hard time understanding the point some are trying to make, and whether or not we are in agreement.
Are you saying, for example, that programs such as Mark Cares' "Truth in Love" ministry to Mormons (http://www.thecityofzion.com), or the ministry one of our members is carrying out to Muslims are just "spending too much time, energy, and effort" on targeting specific groups of lost souls with specific strategies for outreach? Are you saying that these are just "good works" that we should do to be faithful, but that they really are of no eternal consequence to those we are trying to reach and we could just as well be using the same witnessing approach on them as we do to anyone else?
In case its coming across wrong, I'm not at all trying to be inflammatory here - just seeking understanding.
- Mark Salzwedel
Not tired of it, Mark. Just extremely busy.
Your question sets up an unfair dichotomy. You can't spend "too much time, energy and effort" targeting anyone, nor can you talk about which outreach efforts have more "eternal consequence" than others. The idea of any good work being "just a good work to be faithful" isn't sounding very fair, either. Good works are miracles of life from death that our Father loves for Jesus' sake. He even rewards them--even though these rewards are ultimately acts of grace as well, since we don't literally deserve them. Mark Cares' effort is a faithful act, so long as he continues to make the preaching of the Word of Christ the center of that ministry. It is Mark putting forth Mark's best effort and leaving the results in God's hands, and that's a beautiful (miraculous) thing.
When you're talking about "effective strategies" and "tactics," you can't just give a nod to election and say, "I know that's true," while at the same time acting as though the salvation of others is dependent upon which one of several faithful methods you choose. The Bible tells us to go. It tells us to preach. It says to use the full truth that God has given us as we reach out to others (all of that is in Matthew 28:18-20, but I'm also thinking of Mark 16, Romans 1 and 10, the pastoral epistles, etc.). If there is anything about those commands that might be called pressure or any kind of focus on effectiveness, it's the call to be faithful with the whole truth in every preaching of the Word ("teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you," Mt 28:18-20; "if anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God," 1Pt 4:11). But that focus is a relief to me, because it means that I don't have to second guess all the time whether the approach I have taken to get the word out is the "most effective." That is to say, I don't have to worry about the fact that my faithful efforts to preach the Word in its truth and purity may convert fewer people than another faithful approach I could have taken, leaving some people bound for hell who wouldn't have rejected the truth had I chosen another method. I only focus on preaching as God would have me preach (no small task) and, where conversion is concerned, leave "effectiveness" in God's hands, where it belongs.
I feel like going on but can't because of time, and that's probably better, since, if you have questions on that much, I'll only make the list of questions longer by continuing.
In his name,
Aaron Frey
Pastor Frey,
You said:
"When you're talking about "effective strategies" and "tactics," you can't just give a nod to election and say, "I know that's true," while at the same time acting as though the salvation of others is dependent upon which one of several faithful methods you choose. "
But isn't this exactly what Paul does in Romans 10:14?? ("How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?")
So - I think we also have to be careful to also set up a false dichotomy that because of election and God's sovereignty none of our human efforts and/or decisions make any difference, which is what it seems to me you are trying to say (without stating it quite that bluntly). Is it? It seems to me that the Biblical directive is to *behave* very much as if conversion depends on us, while at the same time *trusting* that it really ultimately depends on God.
Please note - I realize that Romans 10:14 is not explicitly speaking to tactics, per se. I think that's a separate and deeper discussion - my only point above is that a paradox clearly exists either way you look at it, so you can't simply argue tactics don't matter because it would somehow conflict with the doctrine of election.
If we get beyond that point, then here are a handful of passages (in addition to countless experiences) that lead me to believe that tactics *do* matter:
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Cor 9:19-22)
"Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." (1 Cor 10:32-33)
"Watch your *life* and doctrine closely. Persevere in *them*, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Tim 4:16)
All this is not to say that conversion doesn't ultimately come down to the miracle of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the message of the Gospel preached to God's pre-destined elect. I guess I don't see a conflict between these assertions.
- Mark Salzwedel
Mark-
You wrote (the first part quoting what I wrote):
"When you're talking about "effective strategies" and "tactics," you can't just give a nod to election and say, "I know that's true," while at the same time acting as though the salvation of others is dependent upon which one of several faithful methods you choose. "
But isn't this exactly what Paul does in Romans 10:14?? ("How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?")
No, Paul does not say anything about salvation being dependent on which faithful method I choose, only that God works through preaching. In fact, while we rightly use that passage to indicate that the gospel is the means of grace, we use it incorrectly if we say that it proves that the likelihood of someone's conversion is affected by my choice of tactics--assuming we're talking about a choice of tactics in which all of them actually preach the Word of Christ. The context is God's faithfulness to the Israelites, even though they rejected him. The point in context is that they didn't reject him for lack of people preaching to them. And surely it wasn't the fault of the prophets for choosing poor tactics.
1Co 9 doesn't point to an effectiveness of one type of tactic over another. It merely points out the way that Paul preached. And, as has been mentioned before on this list, "by all possible means" is critically mistranslated there. It does not indicate a means by which salvation is accomplished but rather a confidence that, as we are faithful in our preaching to anyone and everyone, surely we will run across some who will listen. Pantos (NIV and others: "by all possible means") is the equivalent of "surely" in that last sentence.
1Co 10 is about doing nothing that might wound a conscience, that is, not misusing your freedom in a way that causes someone else to sin against their conscience. It's about being a child of God in such a way that God's will is reflected in everything that you do (10:31). That even includes acting according to someone else's perception of righteousness, so long as what they perceive as a righteous act still lies within the realm of freedom (10:27-29). Jesus did something unnecessary in the realm of freedom for the sake of others' consciences when he instructed Peter to pay the temple tax for the two of them (Mt 17:27). On the other hand, there were many instances where he was free to do something that others would have considered righteous but he didn't do it because it would have been supporting the lies of their "rules made by men" (cf. the Sabbath conflicts).
In both 1Co 9 and 10 Paul use a very basic type of purpose clause in the Greek. That type of clause does not speak to whether or not the speaker can accomplish what he wants to happen. It only expresses the fact that he wants it to happen. It isn't a clause of means, but one of intent, purpose or desire. Jesus used such a clause himself in speaking to the Jews who accused him of breaking the Sabbath ("I mention it that you may be saved," John 5:34), and you can see quite plainly from the usage and context that Jesus isn't commenting on whether or not what he is saying necessarily will save them (Romans 10: "Lord, who has believed our message?" (16), even though "Their voice has gone out into all the earth"). He only wishes that it would. His desire for their salvation is why he said it.
1Ti4 is not about any other tactic than being faithful to the Word. Life and doctrine aren't two different things, at least, they aren't two different things to those who aren't living as hypocrites.
The conflict that I have been speaking to grows from the assertion that certain faithful methods that we use are more likely to convert a person than other faithful methods that we might use. If that's not even an issue among us, then we don't need to debate this anymore. If the question is whether or not we should do everything that the Lord asks us to do for the sake of the lost, and whether or not we desire for Christ's sake that the lost be saved through those efforts, then I don't think anyone on this list will answer any differently than anyone else. The question of how faithful certain methods are is open on a method-by-method basis. So is the question of how honest a method is and what message a particular method proclaims when it is used.
In his name,
Aaron Frey
Pastor Frey,
No offense, but I don't think you carefully read my last post, since you are refuting points I explicitly stated I was not trying to make and you disregarded the points I was making.
As to your conclusion:
"The conflict that I have been speaking to grows from the assertion that certain faithful methods that we use are more likely to convert a person than other faithful methods that we might use."
Well, that's close to what I'm arguing. I guess I am coming from the point of view that it seems certain faithful methods are superior to others, and perhaps even "more likely" to *lead* to a conversion than others (the converting is still done by the Holy Spirit).
"The question of how faithful certain methods are is open on a method-by-method basis. So is the question of how honest a method is and what message a particular method proclaims when it is used."
I guess it depends on how you define "faithful" It seems that every time I give an example of a what I think is an inferior method or tactic, you dismiss it by saying it isn't faithful so it doesn't support my argument. I'm not sure I understand the distinction - and I think that's my main point of confusion. If you are saying that every method of outreach not prohibited by Scripture will be of equal impact, I guess I'm still not convinced and I think I've provided numerous examples to make my case. At the same time, I'm not disagreeing that God can and does still work miracles of conversion despite the crummy jobs we sometimes do in witnessing, and that people's stubborn hearts can and will still resist the Holy Spirit despite the most creative, ingenious, etc. methods we come up with.
- Mark Salzwedel
Mark-
Why would I take offense at correction? That's just pride and foolishness. I thank you. Although I'm not sure what you're referring to, since you just went straight to the conclusion. You may be referring to the fact that Romans 10 is not about tactics. I hadn't misunderstood you on that. I just wanted to be clear about what exactly Romans 10 was saying, because I thought it was pertinent to the discussion and you hadn't fully addressed it yet. Or was it something to do with one of the other passages? I was just trying to bring the meaning of each one of them out so that we could use them better in our discussion. Feel free to tell me if I missed something or said something wrong.
We're definitely getting closer to nailing the point at issue, assuming there is one. You wrote:
I guess it depends on how you define "faithful" It seems that every time I give an example of a what I think is an inferior method or tactic, you dismiss it by saying it isn't faithful so it doesn't support my argument. I'm not sure I understand the distinction - and I think that's my main point of confusion. If you are saying that every method of outreach not prohibited by Scripture will be of equal impact, I guess I'm still not convinced and I think I've provided numerous examples to make my case. At the same time, I'm not disagreeing that God can and does still work miracles of conversion despite the crummy jobs we sometimes do in witnessing, and that people's stubborn hearts can and will still resist the Holy Spirit despite the most creative, ingenious, etc. methods we come up with.
"Faithful," as I have been using it, is faithful to the Word. If it says what the Word says in the way that the Word says it, it is faithful. Sometimes I also use faithful to refer to someone doing the very best they can with the skills and resources they have been given, which isn't terribly different. If you're not being as faithful as you can with your skills and resources, you are not being faithful to the truth, which calls on you to be a good steward.
The thing we need to focus on is simply, "What converts a person?" We have established, I believe, that the answer is, "God, working through his appointed means of grace." The question that remains, I believe, is whether or not some methods are more valuable in converting the unbeliever than others--assuming that all the methods we are speaking about are consistent with the Word
We can still get into that, but what examples have you given of faithfully conveying the message of Christ to show that one method of faithfully conveying the message is demonstrably more likely to convert than others? Preaching in a foreign language or not being concerned about clarity isn't being faithful because it either conveys nothing or shows a lack of respect for the critical nature of the message. It is also lack of love for the people you stand before. This, too, is unfaithful.
Does that help with faithful/unfaithful?
In his name,
Aaron Frey
Pastor Frey,
Yes, I agree it seems like we are zeroing in here. You said:
"We can still get into that, but what examples have you given of faithfully conveying the message of Christ to show that one method of faithfully conveying the message is demonstrably more likely to convert than others? Preaching in a foreign language or not being concerned about clarity isn't being faithful because it either conveys nothing or shows a lack of respect for the critical nature of the message. It is also lack of love for the people you stand before. This, too, is unfaithful."
The first thing that makes me uncomfortable about your definition/use of "faithfulness" is that it seems to be implying that motives/sincerity might somehow impact the "effectiveness" (sorry, I couldn't help but use that word again) of the message. I think Paul clearly disputes that, though:
" But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." (Phil 1:18)
So - I think we can narrow the scope of our discussion further by agreeing that whatever might impact the "conversion process" (I'm really struggling to find non-loaded terms here!) - the motives and/or purity of heart of a person giving the message certainly doesn't. Agreed?
My other issue is that you seem to be categorizing things in black & white terms. I don't know of any Pastor who "isn't concerned about clarity" - if you mean as opposed to someone who is intentionally unclear. However, I know many Pastors who have an attitude (to varying degrees) that "if people don't understand the message, it must be their problem", or "if this method was an effective teaching technique 400 years ago, it must be fine today - and its the fault of today's listeners if they don't "get it".
Let me clarify the above statement so it isn't misunderstood - I rarely if ever see this attitude expressed in such crass terms, but I think to varying degrees this kind of attitude exists in everyone's (including Pastor's) sinful natures.
So - if preaching in a foreign language is clearly "unfaithful", what about using King James English? What about insisting on 20-minute auditory, linearly-organized sermons when most people today are accustomed to learning in short, visually-stimulating, non-linear bursts? What if we are addressing the questions and concerns of people 50 years ago and not the questions and concerns of people today? To me these are all examples of the very same "lack of clarity" issue - but to varying degrees. I also don't think it would be right to say a preacher using traditional, outlined sermons is at all being "unfaithful", as per your definition - but I do think its possible (for the sake of argument, anyway), that a different teaching/preaching method might be more "effective" at communicating the message to a different generation of people. (Please don't take this as an assertion that we all need to throw out the traditional sermon - I'm just saying that, in some circumstances, it might not be the most "effective" method for clearly communicating the Gospel, and I think that's a discussion worth having in our individual churches)
Let me know what you think.
- Mark Salzwedel
P.S. I'd be remiss if I didn't also make the point that on the other side of the ledger, our sinful natures can lead us into false pride that our new, "ingenious" methods are the key to winning converts and everyone else should be using them or is being "unfaithful". I think I've criticized what I (rightly or wrongly) detected of that attitude in this forum in the past.
