 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/15/2002 9:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | Alright so tonight me, my brother and a good friend went to a twins game at the metrodome and on the way to the park we got handed a track by "the street preachers (any of you who have gone to a game know who i am talking about)." out of intrigue i decided to read the track at the ballgame, it was called "The Burning Hell." It has a picture of satan on the cover with people burning in red flames and appearing to scream. it has subtitles like: "Thousands of degrees hot and not a drop of water" and "Tortured lost souls burning forever!" On the inside it quoted many scriptures about hell and repentence, however to my suprise, or maybe not, it said nothing of the love of Christ. Now I already have my issues with street preaching, which is open to be discussed, but after reading this we were wanting to talk to these street preachers about what their goals were and their guiding beliefs.
At times it may seem almost comical the way some people think about stuff and how twisted things can get, however, it really isn't when you know that the only Jesus the world sees is in us and these street preachers. so as a Christian i am honestly worried how people saw the Jesus these people where depicting in their hell fire and vindictiveness. Most non-christians i have talked to say that their main turn off from Christianity is from people who preach like this and come off judgemental and preach fearful doctrines without love or showing love or even getting to know them. i think this is a major problem in modern Christianity. So we went up to the preachers after the game and interupted them in mid-yelling rants of hell and damnation and repentence from their wicked ways. We tried to discover their motives and reason with them. Here are a few of the things we found, let me know what you think, if you agree or not and how do you believe we should effectively share our faith:
1.First, one of the preachers told me that God's love is conditional and that he only loves those who come to repentence. I responded by mentioning the parable of the lost sheep, the prodigal son, the passage in romans saying that while we were still sinners christ died for us and so on. i even used logical arguments, but obviously they rejected "the wisdom of man" and they resorted to scriptures where it says that God hates wickedness and so on. One mentioned something about God hating Esau and loving Jacob(comments?). They also used many pithy cliche statements and got angered by the use of objective reasoning and even started using personal insults (and they were trying to bring people to Christ!!!)." Well, to say the least i was quite apolled at the notion that God doesn't love sinners and found this to be a major motivation for their fear doctrines and was amazed about this. it seemed they missed the very nature of the gospel, God's love for sinners. And it also lead into the second part of their theology that seemed very off kiltered.
2.After we got into the discussion of God's love and the effectiveness of their damnation preaching, one of the men told me that he himself did not love these people cause "what fellowship should light have with darkness," amd that Christians aren't supposed to love sinners (what!!!). I mentioned the commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself, but obvioulsy with a theology that Jesus didn't even love the people he died for, if Jesus couldn't love sinners, how could we? I guess this is a reason why it seems to me so much street preaching is done out of fear, because it seems they are really only looking out for themselves because the reason to do it is to get yourself more "spiritual points" for fulfilling Jesus' commmandment about evangelization and to make sure you aren't held accountable for not sharing Jesus with every person you encounter, so we shout in a very impersonal manner at the "sinners" in a call to repentance, which seems to be a very cheap and lazy way of doing things. do we even really care when we do? It doesn't seem to be out of love because it's very impersonal. From my understanding Jesus was very personal to those he ministered to and did so out of love, not vidictiveness (John 3:17). From my experience the best way to share Christ is to get to know people and share his love with them first and then discuss theology. However, street preaching appears to be more done in fear and ranting to nameless faces who they don't even care about or care to know. Are we motivated by fear or love? What should our motivation be? What is the right context if there is one for each?
3.I found out that these guys are avid KJV("THE only Pure Bible") supporters and don't consider the NIV to be the word of God? This was a little bit of a barrier in us discussing things from the Bible. it was interesting to hear what they had to say about this. They said it should be used "as toilet paper" because the NIV said that satan was the same thing as God(?). They related passages of scripture from Isaiah 14:12 where it talks about the fall of lucifer and speaks of him saying "o morning star (lower case)," to a passage in revelation 22 (something?) where it called Christ the Morning Star (capital letters). So they said this was equating Christ with satan, which i found absurd, what do you think? i talked a little about historical criticism and exegesis in the greek and the different manuscripts that our copies are from( and the fact that we have no original manuscripts). However, as you might guess, this "worldly" knowledge had no affect on their trust in the mighty King James ordained translation. I don't get it, do we got any big King James buffs out there?
4.Alright, fourthly and finally because i don't want to go on to long, i found that their mindset and the mindset in much of modern evangelicalism, was a total rejection of objective reason. there only source of knowledge was the King James Bible. Any logical argument was of no use because they would then quote and twist some passage about the wisdom of man being useless. one wonders how we believe in anything if we don't think objectively. are we just spoon fed? how do we come to our knowledge? it seems many people who reject objective reasoning fail to realize that we even bring our own logic and views into how we interpret the bible. they were apolled that some one could interpret hell differently than literal and didn't have much to say about the term "ghenna (hell)" or its non-existence in the old testiment. everything is not so cut and dry. however, when one of them stood by the infallibility of the bible and the non-need for objective reasoning, i mentioned some of the apparent "human" errors in the bible (read dr. boyd's "across the spectrum" for some notes on some apparent errors). However he just responded to this in anger and more insulting words about me being in darkness for saying such things and therefore went on quoting more bible verses like "God's word will not return void." Which this gave him justifaction for just shouting bible verses at people who most likely don't even believe in the bible. it comes off sounding very ignorant and not representing what should be the truth of Christianity. It's discouraging for any thinking Christian because it makes Christianity look like an ignorant and moronic, blindless stance. However i think if we actually got to know people and just talk and reason and discuss in a respectful and non-threatening manner, this would be much more effective and we might actually have some cultural relevance. I am actually reading Mark Noll's "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" and it is just disheartening to see what this very prevalent anti-intellectual mindset is doing to Christianity and our influence in culture. What should we do? How are we to communicate our faith?
Well i think that is enough for now, i am looking foward to some responses and to hear others imputs and experiences with this. i guess the point of this whole thing was just to vent some of my frustration on the whole ordeal (we talked for about an hour with the fellows) and to get some imput onto what we can do as Christians to be a positive Christ-like influence in our culture. I was extremely disheartened by the whole thing because these guys are out there every night, affecting the way people see Jesus. I guess you can't really worry about it, but at the same time what are we suppoed to do? A doctrine of a conditional loving God is very detrimental, i believe to the faith. so i guess this is just me venting, sorry, i've seen it too much and i am tired of it. it's hard to know what to do when people have seemingly very ignorant stances and it would be very easy to just walk away and forget about it. but at the same time this affects other people outside ourselves and the very character of our faith is at stake. i guess such in the nature of reality and humanity, but it's frustrating, is their any cure?
Blessings,
David
ps. i actually told one of the more reasonable guys to come on her and discuss some of his theological points cause he was a little more open minded then the others. Also my friend Josh got his e-mail address and is going to keep in touch with him and we might send him some book suggestion on some theological topics. So there was some good accomplished. Please pray for this situation and others like it, that people may find the love that is in Christ Jesus.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/16/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | David,
What I want to know is…who won the ball game?  No, seriously, did you enjoy the ball game or did you let this incident get to ya? I understand your feelings. But man, ENJOY THE GAME!!!
Here’s my thoughts on this.
quote:
From my experience the best way to share Christ is to get to know people and share his love with them first and then discuss theology.
Right on! There are actually stats on this. More people come to Christ because of someone they knew, i.e. a relative or friend then from either television, radio, or street preachers who have this military type mindset of “going in, making the strike and then getting out of there.”
When I was in Bible School, we did a poll in my evangelism class and probably about 1-2% of people in that class “got saved” because of electronic media. 98-99% of the class came to faith because of someone they knew. What does this tell ya?
1. Well, it certainly tells you where our priorities should be.
2. It tells you something about the American mindset that places too much inestimable value in technology to get the job done. A very interesting subject all its own which I would like to put up on the “Tearing down the walls” thread in the future.
Having said that, I would also like to say that I believe God can use even crappy tracts (putting it nicely) and street preachers like you were exposed to in spite of themselves. Do I put much stock in these things even though these guys “crossed the line” and Christ love didn’t come through? At that point? Probably not. But Christ can use such things as tracts, street preachers, and technology for his glory and we shouldn’t throw these things out because of a few bad apples.
Romans 12:2 says, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, not the removal of our minds. Clearly, these guys were the latter.
P.S. Did ya get saved? 
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/16/2002 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | hey brandon,
thanks for the response. yeah we enjoyed the game, except for the fact that we lost! our encounter didn't really affect much because it was after the game and by gones will be by gones or what not. we actually told these fellows it might be good for them to actual go and take in a game (maybe it would help them loosen em up ). but, yeah i totally agree with what you said about our modern modes of evangelization. i go to a christian university in minneapolis and we had a group of non christians come in for an event put on by some campus group and they basically told us their thoughts on christianity. and almost everyone of them and every non-christian friend i have has said the same thing, and that is that their biggest turn off to christianity in the fear and the judgemental attitudes that are portrayed by some of these street preachers and others. so this in affect harms my witness. i am not one to think that people are "saved" on the spot, it's a process that only a real sincere relationship can foster. sure it may be possible that people can get saved like this, but usually they have to be in deep need or it fades without solid christian fellowship and learning. i think every postive way we display our selves to non-believers is a step in the right direction. however every negative encounter we have is a step back wards for non-believers and is one more obstacle we have to overcome. also, as you said i don;t doubt that GOd can use these "crappy" tracks or whatever form he would like to use, but i think what you have to think about is, is the minimal success (i haven't heard much of it's success, as you stated) worth all the damage it causes? to tell you the truth i would have had less of a problem if the big signs that were held up, the tracks that were handed out and the words that they spoke were something to do with God's love, not just damnation and God's hatred of sin and people's wickeness. but still it seems impersonal. we need to remember that we don;t save people, God can certainly use us to share his love, however ultimately it is God who saves and it is God who decides who he will save. i guess it's just one of the those things we just have to shrug our shoulders and just work twice as hard to portray God's love and the Truth. also, i also just wanted to mention that these men did have vary positions on the four things i listed, but they were all in unity on their bent for hell fire and fear. and one more thing, i liked what you said about renewing your mind, not removing your mind. nice! well, i hope everyone has a good day. love the truth and love others. Go Twins!
-David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/17/2002 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | David,
Here's another question. And this will lead into an even bigger question to that! But...
What do you think about street preaching or street preachers? What do you think of tent meetings?
When I was in Bible School? We did the Mardi Gras evangelism thing. Handed out tracts, and witnessed to "reprobates"  Well, there was a street preacher yelling at the top of his lungs bidding people to leave their wicked ways and to come to God. I found it embarassing, but some felt that people have different styles.
Now, what if this guy yelled at the top of his lungs but was instead, preach'n love? Delivery the same. Message different. What do you think 'bout that?
Here's the point I'm driving at. Is there not a time when old method's of doing things are long overdue? That is, shouldn't we pack in the old way of doing things (especially when they are no longer affective) and find a new, fresh and vibrant way to deliver the Gospel?
Basically, I am asking about contextualization. This is a real concern for some in the church. For i.e. using technology, power point, video, etc, has concerned some because they feel that this might water down the message, or comprimise the Gospel. In some ways, I would tend to agree with this. For i.e., the nature of t.v. is such that it is visual as opposed to word based. How does this affect how we think (see/feel about) of God, the Gospel and how the audience recieves it? Has not t.v. evangelism basically been a flop?
See what I'm saying?
I still see tent meetings going up even around here and I wonder if people are yearning for a bygone era which they will never get back. That may tell us something about ourselves and being "set in our ways," even with the glorious Gaaaassspaaal! But it seems to me that tents are out and other mediums are in.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
D.O.L.
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/18/2002 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
David,
...
Basically, I am asking about contextualization. This is a real concern for some in the church. For i.e. using technology, power point, video, etc, has concerned some because they feel that this might water down the message, or comprimise the Gospel. In some ways, I would tend to agree with this. For i.e., the nature of t.v. is such that it is visual as opposed to word based. How does this affect how we think (see/feel about) of God, the Gospel and how the audience recieves it? Has not t.v. evangelism basically been a flop?
See what I'm saying?
I still see tent meetings going up even around here and I wonder if people are yearning for a bygone era which they will never get back. That may tell us something about ourselves and being "set in our ways," even with the glorious Gaaaassspaaal! But it seems to me that tents are out and other mediums are in.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Brandon,
Hello. I understand the gist of what you're saying above, but I'm a little confused as to why you think powerpoint (etc.) doesn't ADD to the word/message being given? If the word is still being spoken, and the visuals are added, doesn't this make our learning more concrete? For me, internally, I represent a spoken message visually anyway. So, when a visual is added, its almost like I get to skip the step of internal translation and move on. It makes sense much more quickly. Again this is for me, everyone is different. In addition, I believe if we take notes while hearing, and add visuals, the message embeds even deeper. This happens simply because we are using a wider range of modalities. What do you think? In my opinion, the speaker is also casting a wider net into his/her audience by attempting to use as many representational systems as possible.
Then again, if I had my way, every message would include an interactive play 
Blessings to you,
d.o.l
Edited by - D.O.L. on 08/18/2002 07:32:08 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/19/2002 12:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Man, hearing your story really made me mad. I just don't see how anyone can come to Jesus through fear. I suppose in order to have the full truth, you have to present the fact that someday, God is gonna call an end to all this, and those who havn't accepted Chirst will be with out God forever, but I know that when the Gospel was presented to me in those "Turn or Burn" terms, I just dug in my heels and resisted more. Sometimes, it seems like these "preachers" WANT us all to burn in hell! The best way to witness is by demonstrating Christs' love for people, and praying for God to send you searching people. I hope you can dialog with those guys and maybe their eyes will be opened - they are probably missing out on all the love Jesus has for them.
Edited by - JimmyGgp on 08/19/2002 05:13:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/19/2002 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | D.O.L.,
This is gonna be quick and I'll answer a little more fully later today after I've had some sleep.
I don't have a problem with visual aids per se. I didn't mean to convey that if I did. As a matter of fact, icons were a major part of worship in the O.T. Many Catholics and Orthodox still use icons in worship today which is definitely something that Protestants could pick up on. Though the Protestant fear is idolization. So those would need to be balanced out.
However, I don't think I would endorse uncritically the use of technology in modern Protestant worship circles. There is a major difference between icons and visuals as opposed to the latest technological communications device. We should not put these on the same level. Not all visuals are equivalent.
For example, among other things, a problem I would have with the use of technology is what technology represents. In the American mindset, technology represents two things, success and progress. So much so, that this has invaded the way we have "done church" or "do evangelism." One (church, denomination, etc) can easily fall into the trap that by using technology one will be successful when in fact there is very little if any success at all. Basically the North American Christianity capitulates to the world's idea/l of success. Anyhoo...that is just a part of what I was thinking 'bout. More later.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/19/2002 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | | hey brandon,
sorry for the somewhat belated response, too much work and not enough sleep. what bible school did you go to by the way. because the school i presently attend, north central university, also goes to mardi gras.
alright so you asked:
"What do you think about street preaching or street preachers? What do you think of tent meetings?" (as well, you asked about certain technologies)
well i am not going to be one to put handcuffs on God and say what he can and can not use, however i do ask the question what is the most
effective way to convey his love as opposed to what is most detrimental. Sure God could do anything he wanted, but we see Jesus in the Gospels as very personal in his ministry (i.e. his disciple, eating with tax collectors, the woman at the well, etc), but yet sometimes he ministered in larger settings as well. however, this was mostly because the crowds came and followed him and it was done mostly in a teaching manner to a demographic make up of people who were mostly Jewish with close to similiar beliefs. Also, we know paul preached to the crowds at times, however, paul was also give a special mandate from God. i am not saying we are not to preach to the crowds, however, i wonder it's effectiveness. should we go on do one thing a certain way if we find it's not effective or even worse detrimental just because in past history Christians have done it? Time and time again from non-christians i have heard their negative experiences with street preaching. what spirit are we representing when we preach, is it a spirit of fear and condemnation, which i would argue are not things of God, or is it a spirit of love, which extends from GOd to oursleves to the rest of humanity, which i believe is the essence of Christ? I believe it is hard to convey this message of love when our presentation is so impersonal(i.e. street preaching, tent meetings, tele-evangelism, etc.), and also it is next to impossible to deal with intellectual barriers to faith.
all of which is very hard to do outside of a personal relationship with a non-christian friend. The Gospel, i believe, is really in us and the love we show. i believe you can take somewhat out for coffee and jsut talk about life and no theological issues at all and be showing a better portrait of CHrist than some other forms. i think we forget, like i said before, that we don't save people, GOd does, and it;s a process, one that God allows us the privelege to be apart of. i don;t think this is watering down the message at all, cause the message of the Gospel is love. we don't always need to feel that we have to have people accpet. we need to love people even while they don;t and this will be showing them Christ all the more.
also, brandon, i agree with you about what you said about technology, how it almost seems like in our western culture as sign of success or progress and people take that to mean that ministry is successful, when in fact it may not be. having the latest isn;t always the greatest. sometimes if i need a good laugh i will watch a little TBN and see the lady with the big hair sitting in her nice golden chair in the fancy studio. technology can be a blessing no doubt, but i wonder what Jesus would have prefrered, to sit in a golden chair or to go and eat and fellowship with the "sinners and tax-collectors?" what i guess it all comes down to is where your heart is at and where God is leading you, i guess only God can be the judge. alright enough for now i hope this made sense. i gotta go.
peace,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/19/2002 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | David! Dude!
You said alot of stuff I really resonate with. First, I went to Christ for the Nations in Dallas TX. It is not an academically challenging school at all, but there were some life experiences I learned there that I would never get in an academic setting. Some things are better caught then taught, eh? My wife went to North Central for a semester, though.
quote:
I believe it is hard to convey this message of love when our presentation is so impersonal(i.e. street preaching, tent meetings, tele-evangelism, etc.)
Ooooo....good stuff. I won't get into all of this now, but that is one of my big beefs with televangelism. By it's very nature it conveys a false sense of intimacy as if the preacher is speaking personally with you! I'll talk about that more later if we get into that.
quote:
The Gospel, i believe, is really in us and the love we show. i believe you can take somewhat out for coffee and jsut talk about life and no theological issues at all and be showing a better portrait of CHrist than some other forms.
This ROCKS! One of my profs at Christ for the Nations who taught the evangelism course spoke about how Jesus literally did evangelism through meals. This should tell us something about communion as evangelism. Excellent stuff!
quote:
we don't always need to feel that we have to have people accpet. we need to love people even while they don;t and this will be showing them Christ all the more.
Wow! I love it! It reminds me of what Dr. Wayne Lee (taught at the Church of God in TN) said. When Jesus was calling his disciples? One disciple asks, "Where do you live?" And Jesus says, "Come and see." We don't have to rush people to salvation, as a one time experience. We can say, "Hey come let us reason. Come and investigate. Come and see." Awesome.
Lastly, I wanted to deal more indepth with D.O.L's response. But because of time constraints, I will say just this little bit. Again, I don't have problems with visual aids per se? But they should never eclispse reading or word or language. There needs to be a balance here. And there are theological underpinnings for why I think this way. Among others, here are a couple of examples.
1. The whole of Christian revelation centers around a book, and I don't mean biblolatory (sp) here people.
2. The centrality of the Bible means that the very act of reading can have spiritual significance. Whereas other religions stress visions, experiences or even silent meditation as a way to achieve contact with the divine, Christianity insists on the role of language.
Anyhoo...sorry for making this quick. Gotta fly.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/22/2002 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | D.O.L.,
I made a fuller response to your enquiry on the, "Tearing Down the Walls" thread, entitled, "Ethical Absolutes in the Context of Image and Word." Check it out...NOW!!
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|