New Strategy?
I have been away for a couple of weeks. I have been in New York for business, Florida for some R&R and now I am in a hotel in San Francisco. I am here to be part of an ad hoc committee (Doesn't that sound as if someone got something stuck in their throat?)
The committee I am on has the purpose of evaluating a long standing conference/seminar on evangelism The Salvation Army holds in Colorado every year. My wife,Janet, attended the seminar a few years back and found the experience exciting. Others I know have really touted the effectiveness of the seminar. I do love the fact that it is giving lay people the opportunity to share the
Gospel. It also gets them excited as a result. Many, for the first time share their faith, often to perfect strangers. Of course, I wonder if the people receiving the Gospel on the other end think we might be the strange ones. We walk up to them in a uniform and ask them if they want to know Jesus. I am sure that is an experience you don't have every day. It is probably one most people would not WANT to have either.
There are many positives about the experience. That is why I am somewhat conflicted as I write. What I fear is that we have packaged evangelism into a nice neat three point (or more) technique and then the next thing you know, we have a convert. I don't want to trivialize the importance of the Gospel. It is LIFE. I guess I am more concerned with the notion that there is a school of thought that has reduced evangelism to a science. In fact, for years, I practiced that kind of evangelism.
Sadly, in my practice of technique evangelism, I think there were tons of spiritual still births. I would pray with someone after sharing the Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, or stick the name of your method here ____________, only to never know what happened to the person or to have them ignore my follow up attempts. So I wonder, is that really sharing the Gospel?
I believe the Gospel has the power to change lives. The Gospel has the power to change systems of corruption. It has the power to change neighborhoods. It is, however, becoming more abundantly clear to me that the Gospel that really will change lives, is not in a package, but in a process. In other words, I need to look at people for relationship purposes and be willing to walk the road with them for the long run. Otherwise, my presentation I fear, especially in these days of postmodern thought, will bring about spiritual stillbirths at best and at worst, a negative, hostile reaction to the Lord I love.
So I come to these meetings the next couple of days looking for what the Spirit would say. I am not sure what He will tell us. I know many here will be look for a new strategy. I am wondering if an old one might do better. I am talking about a first century strategy where community was built and pentecostal rain fell. Maybe that is what the Spirit is calling us to do. I am afraid I will not be much for endorsing curriculum or a package. I am thinking we may need to have the bold new strategy, maybe there will need to be some discipleship of the non-believer before they accept Christ. We invite and accept them into community and allow that community to be a witness to what the Gospel can do.
It is not a neatly prepared package of talking points. It is probably a bit messy. It won't be efficient. It might just be what we need in this day in which we live.
What do you think?
The committee I am on has the purpose of evaluating a long standing conference/seminar on evangelism The Salvation Army holds in Colorado every year. My wife,Janet, attended the seminar a few years back and found the experience exciting. Others I know have really touted the effectiveness of the seminar. I do love the fact that it is giving lay people the opportunity to share the
Gospel. It also gets them excited as a result. Many, for the first time share their faith, often to perfect strangers. Of course, I wonder if the people receiving the Gospel on the other end think we might be the strange ones. We walk up to them in a uniform and ask them if they want to know Jesus. I am sure that is an experience you don't have every day. It is probably one most people would not WANT to have either.
There are many positives about the experience. That is why I am somewhat conflicted as I write. What I fear is that we have packaged evangelism into a nice neat three point (or more) technique and then the next thing you know, we have a convert. I don't want to trivialize the importance of the Gospel. It is LIFE. I guess I am more concerned with the notion that there is a school of thought that has reduced evangelism to a science. In fact, for years, I practiced that kind of evangelism.
Sadly, in my practice of technique evangelism, I think there were tons of spiritual still births. I would pray with someone after sharing the Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, or stick the name of your method here ____________, only to never know what happened to the person or to have them ignore my follow up attempts. So I wonder, is that really sharing the Gospel?
I believe the Gospel has the power to change lives. The Gospel has the power to change systems of corruption. It has the power to change neighborhoods. It is, however, becoming more abundantly clear to me that the Gospel that really will change lives, is not in a package, but in a process. In other words, I need to look at people for relationship purposes and be willing to walk the road with them for the long run. Otherwise, my presentation I fear, especially in these days of postmodern thought, will bring about spiritual stillbirths at best and at worst, a negative, hostile reaction to the Lord I love.
So I come to these meetings the next couple of days looking for what the Spirit would say. I am not sure what He will tell us. I know many here will be look for a new strategy. I am wondering if an old one might do better. I am talking about a first century strategy where community was built and pentecostal rain fell. Maybe that is what the Spirit is calling us to do. I am afraid I will not be much for endorsing curriculum or a package. I am thinking we may need to have the bold new strategy, maybe there will need to be some discipleship of the non-believer before they accept Christ. We invite and accept them into community and allow that community to be a witness to what the Gospel can do.
It is not a neatly prepared package of talking points. It is probably a bit messy. It won't be efficient. It might just be what we need in this day in which we live.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 4:32 PM
16 Comments:
I guess my conflict comes in the fact that so many have been blessed/challenged/stretched through the experience you are evaluating. Which says that it has very tangible value.
Having said that, I haven't often seen huge advances in evangelistic endeavors for folks when they return which I guess maybe causes me to question the events stated goals/purpose.
It seems to me that maybe there should be an effort to more accurately articulate exactly what it is that lay folks really come away with (and why that may or may not be a worthwhile pursuit), and if it is worth the cost, then redefine what we state/plan as the goal of this time away.
There just seems to be something about the setting (natural and human elements that is) that speaks about our creator in a way that no other place seems to do.
One further note: I realize this could be seen as missing a target and then just deciding to move the target to where your arrow landed . . . or, it could be the case of "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while." That nut is just as valuable even if he didn't realize he was going to find it.
I have a huge issue with a curriculum, or method to evangelism.One could say that the methods have worked, but how effectively. There is the problem you have already stated. I also would say that a method that works today may not work two years from now. The world is changing faster than ever and to put stock in a method that might be slightly successful today leaves us with a huge problem tomorrow. It is like the fad dieting of evangelism.
There is no substitution for genuine relationship. Jesus was captain relationship. Unless we stop taking the easier road in our evangelism and have relationships with people, we are going to continually find ourselves with shallow converts that easily find them selves ensnared by the devil. If we can fall into Satan's traps from time to time, what makes us think that a new Christian with no deep Biblical foundation and little accountability will fair better?
There maybe success with "fad" evangelism, but I would guarantee that it doesn't match up with the success of a friend leading a friend to Christ and being there to help them take their first Baby steps after their new birth.
I read a book called “The Celtic Way of Evangelism”. In it the author points out that the founders of both the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses were “saved” at and during the period of the great revivals in America. That it was that “turnstile” style of evangelism that was able to introduce two men to Jesus, and then allow them to skew the gospel the way they have by not discipling them. And discipleship only comes through relationships.
I also used to participate in the turnstile style of evangelism, using “repeat after me” prayers from the pulpit. But I finally came to understand, through an event that still makes my soul ache, that God requires more of me than that. That I don’t get “credit” for any stats I accumulate through “repeat after me” prayers. Now, even when I preach at evangelistic events, I invite people who are interested in “knowing Jesus” to talk about it with a Christian they respect back home. I’m no longer interested in the stats, only the souls.
I once was part of a church where the pastor believed that big decisions weren’t something that should be dealt with during five minutes at the alter, but that they required us to meet people in their homes and walk with them through those decisions. I’ve never forgotten that example.
I feel your conflict. I recently came down pretty hard on what i called "White Castle Christianity" confrontational evangelism is not just ineffective I can bring my almost bring myself to call unChristian, that is it is inconsistant with the life and teachings of Christ.
We were commanded to make disciples not pressure people who we have never met and will in most cases never see again into saying a prayer.
These methods often provide a shield for the "evangelist" the confrontation can ease their conscience without without them ever having to really interact with other human's. These confrontations are usually very onesided.
All that being said the average Salvationist doesn't do any evangelism wheteher confrontational, relational or otherwise. and most still come back from the seminar excited and ready to change the world.
and sometimes the confrontation is a helpful way to get a person started. Talking to total stangers is frighting to some people and often parralyzes peole into inaction.
We are called to love our neighbor to truly love our neighbor we need to get to know them to interact with them and be known by them. maybe they should send them out at the national seminar and tell them to make friends with a total stranger???
Eddy, I agree to an extent. But I also believe that William Booth (and his officers) understood the importance of discipleship. I not sure that the current version of TSA does.
It seems to me that by the tone of the majority of these posts that "cold calling evangelism" doesn't work. Is there any chance that the simple power of the word of God still does work? Or maybe a better question would be, can the Holy Spirit still convict the sinner with a simple presentation of God's word?
When the Word goes out in GE does it come back void? Just some questions that come to my mind. The person that we pray with that we have never met and will probably never meet again. Might the Holy Spirit begin a work in that person? Who are we to say that when are backs are turned the horse will never drink the water?
blue,
I am not sure that anyone is saying that cold call evangelism does not work. I believe what is being said is that there may be much more effective and long lasting ways to build stronger believers through community. Isn't that what we all want?
Larry,
I think I agree with you. I guess what I am saying is that there are some who are very adept at connecting in a moments notice. They have that gift. There are those who have the gift and the patience to diciple along someone. Don't we need good people to do both?
The package system can always be adapted can't it? At GE maybe it's time to go down the slopes with a John 3:16 banner!
I picked up a $100.00 bill in an envelope about a week ago. The bill was sticking out of the little white envelope to entice me to pick it up. I did. It wasn't $100.00 is was a Gospel Tract. The first thing that was written on it was "Don't Be Disappointed", well I was and I wanted to cuss. I didn't. My feelings are that that type of deception is far worse than "Cold Calling Evangelism". At least when you talk to someones face they can tell you to get out of it.
I'm absolutely staggered that new soldiers are not given cracking good training in evangelism and mission from day one and why are we not expected to go back for updates and refreshers at regular intervals? My territory I don't think even has much in the way of courses - if anything - for soldiers. I had to go to the Baptist college to get training. We deal with training in health and safety issues more reliably as a church than we deal with training in evangelism. What is the point in having a building that is safe but empty? Is it just me or have we lost the plot?
Warmest blessings
Eleanor n/TSSF
Larry:
I am so sick amd tired of hearing that word "Community". I understand it but some people, including you, over use it.
We miss you arouind here and tell Blue the next time he post something try to make sense.
Wthom,
I will be at the SFOT COMMUNITY this week ;0
If the intellectuals can't understand my posts then more schooling is in order.
And never forget what one of the most intelligent human beings that ever lived once said, "It takes a village (community) to raise a child." I believe her husband was president, or was she? I can't remember.
We over think too many things. Of course, I on the other hand, tend to underthink too many things.
The word never comes back void. True or not true?
Does anybody else wonder if that verse has been used a little out of context all these years? I mean, when Paul said those words, he was referring to another Christian preacher down the road who was preaching a little different doctrine. Surely, in the context of a cult leader (for instance), the word is not only void but completely sick and twisted. That it, in fact, leads people astray.
Despite the use of that verse, I would suggest that, in the wrong hands, even the "Word" (or somebody's misguided use of it) can do more harm than good.
perhaps the Word comes back void when it goes out void...these arent mere words in our book of truth. lets embrace each moment as a chance to live fully for Him and in doing so, our concern for "the lost" wont be as dangerously close to undermining His Word as i believe it can be today...i can appreciate hand-outs with a compact "version" of the Word, but a three step process to heaven seems to me to almost disrespect the humbling, awesome (in the true sense of the word), truth of the Almighty becoming one of His own creations to show us the Way and sacrifice Himself in place of the collective Judas that we are all a part of...let us not lose our wonder...
Post a Comment
<< Home