 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > How should we evangelize? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/4/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | This question comes in two parts.
On these boards it has been stated that we should develop relationships before we can speak into a person's life. My question is, how should we evangelize? I realize that there is "friendship" evangelism similar to developing a relationship with someone spoken above. However, are there not other ways? For example there is "street evangelism" where its basically a "hit and miss" approach. There is inner city evangelism through shelters, etc, where you feed someone with the hopes of eventually sharing the Gospel. What do you think is the most preferrable way?
Related to this is, what should one SAY in evangelism? The answer to this question may depend on the type of approach you take. Say in the street evangelism approach, is it ever appropriate to tell someone "there is a hell to shun?" Notice the way I said that. I did not say, "If you don't accept what God has done for you in Christ, you will go to (the OTHER place) hell." What I am asking is, is it EVER appropriate to warn against an existence without God in evangelism? Or should we concentrate on the "positive aspects" of the Gospel? If so (warning about hell), how would you go about conveying it?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/4/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | My personal idea of evangelism deals with two poles: testimony and proclamation. It seems to me biblically that this is how the Good News (euangelion) got spread. They TESTIFIED to the work of God in the world, particularly their own lives, in word AND deed. They also PROCLAIMED the liberation of all captives from the bondage of sin, death, and the Evil One.
Now, the question is WHAT FORMS those two poles take in different contexts, without negating the ESSENCE of those two poles. Contextualization without compromise. This will obviously depend on a number of factors, but keeping the essence true will keep evangelism true to itself. (Testimony is NOT proselytism or manipulation. Proclamation is NOT proselytism or manipulation.)
So, what is the most preferable way? Depends. What is the NON-NEGOTIABLES of evangelism? Simply this:
1) Are you testifying, in life and word, to the Good News of God
2) Are you proclaiming liberation for the captives of this world?
3) Are you doing 1 and 2 in the power of the Triune God?
***********************************
What to say in evangelism? The Good News. And what is the Good News? That the Triune God has made available eternal life and liberation from the tyrannies that beset human existence. What are those tyrannies? Sin, death, Satan, the false self, etc. The list goes on and on…
THIS why it’s important to be vigiliant in DISCERNMENT. Not only by being thoroughly aware of one’s context, but in being open to the Spirit of God directing your steps. There are a PLETHORA of tyrannies about that the Good News counteracts. And in being discerning, we can be vehicles to demonstrate the Kingdom of God IN our contexts. And leave the rest to God.
Sorry if this sounds simplistic, but this is how I see it. Hallelujah.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
1John 1:1-3
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/4/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I found that when I volunteered to help organize with the GEU, despite the fact I was not going to benefit from it and had it pretty well, that allowed me to share about my faith with non-Christians who I never would have been able to share with otherwise. Before going out to organize, I would ask them if I could pray for us and our time organizing.
The word, Evangel, comes from evangelion, which I believe means having a higher authority. This means one has a higher authority than the existing political authorities(This is why in large part the early Christians were persecuted so much by the Roman Gov't.). It can translate into acting to help limit or disperse the existing political authority. Doing so can increase the willingness to listen to the Gospel. One of the big differences between the forms Christianity took in the US and Europe historically, is that in the US churches were far more attuned to the needs/desires of the normal people, whereas in Europe they often served implicitly the ruling classes. So what happened? Given the importance of the economic in our lives, people gave authority to Churches here in the US and denied it in Europe. That is why I think it is important that we develop more autonomy in our politics from the existing parties and not sell our votes so cheaply to the economic conservatives of the Republican Party. How we use our political capital affects our witness to the world. We don't want Evangelical Christianity to come to be associated with any particular party or president...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/4/2003 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Life your life as a Christian growing in God. Thats testimony enough.
"Preach the gospel to all nations. And if neccessary, use words." St. Francis | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/5/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe it's the spaghetti that I just ate, but I don't see how I've contradicted myself at all. Be just a little more specific for me, homie....
and don't forget this...
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2518
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/5/2003 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | Brandon: I am not oppose to words at all. It is just my feeling that when Christians talk about evangelism its almost like its just another job. I think evangelism should be a natural flow from our lives. I don't even think it is something you should think about doing, but rather it comes out of a life lived in awe, glory and love of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, a few things…
DLW…I actually posted my last post to you by accident. I was just chuckling about how you bring politics into it…seriously…I thought to myself...”Well, I’m think’n more PERSONAL stuff…and you’re think’n politics”…I hope I wasn’t condescending…your post just hit a funny bone, know what I mean? Even as I type this, I’m chuckling…
Second, honorman…it’s just that it seemed you were downplaying that we have to “use words.” I guess after all is said and done and we have BEFRIENDED someone, we still should give a CLEAR presentation. Yes?
Meph Man….it seems to me that the early church was able to testify and proclaim what God has done in Christ not only in the world but in their OWN LIVES with SOME CERTAINTY. And of course, you have provided some excellent references.
Now, on the “Meph attempts to describe love” thread you said:
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Brandon:
quote:
You don’t KNOW this (that you are of worth) from mere existence. There is nothing in existence that tells you this. You know this only because God has DECLARED it. If you were an isolated solitary unit, you would not know that you are of ANY significance. It seems to me that you are “riding off the coat tails” of an apriori theocentric view.
Yes, I do know this by mere existence. Why? Because I know my Creator.
So, how do you reconcile these statements of APPARENT CERTAIN knowledge with “the myth of certainty?”
Just asking. It's kinda bugged me for some time now. 
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
What you are citing is more IMPRECISION OF LANGUAGE than anything else. You should have gotten that, man. Think about it. If ANYONE has been against psychological certainty on this board, it’s been me. Come ON, man…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/5/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
DLW…I actually posted my last post to you by accident. I was just chuckling about how you bring politics into it…seriously…I thought to myself...”Well, I’m think’n more PERSONAL stuff…and you’re think’n politics”…I hope I wasn’t condescending…your post just hit a funny bone, know what I mean? Even as I type this, I’m chuckling
I figured as much... But I'm sure Meph can back me up on the fact that euangelion was understood as having a political meaning in the early church and that was the cause of much of the persecution of the early Christians.
I actually over on the theology-web board am advising one of your fellow canadians that you conservatives over there in Canada should up the ante and do marches and civil disobedience with the central issue being the arcane structure of your gov't that favors the Liberal Party so much. Focusing on the political structure will enable you all to generate more publicity and press from other countries. Then, if you succeed you can use the changes to insist that the homosexual marriage thing be put to a public mandate.
So the point is that mostly I care about the structure of democracy and preventing any group from controlling the gov't too much since power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Politics, in general, is mostly a game where parties try to gain control the gov't and get the benefits that come with said control. As such, to hold a higher authority than whoever happens to be in control of the gov't right now means that Christians need to develop an autonomy from the existing main parties and seek to make the political system more competitive, meaning no candidate is guaranteed reelection.
Why does this matter for seeking personal convictions. The African-American Christian John Perkins considered Jesus' example with the woman at the well. Jesus, in seeking to evangelize her, began with her felt need for water and after he had her attention then proceeded to her true need for salvation. Caring about the economic, both in terms of distribution and how the overall system functions, often buys one the chance to share one's faith.
In the US, Christianity stayed alive, unlike much of Europe, because people committed themselves regularly to renewing its institutions. Why did they do that? Unlike with Europe, the Church(es) were not agents of those who are in power. They were autonomous of those in power and served as the basis for political mobilization at times.
Robert Fogel's book, "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism" looks at the role Christian Churches historically played in the US political system.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/5/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: how can you be the opposite of me when you don't even understand what I said...pity, once again...
Brandon, if God does not flow from our lives, we should have nothing to say. If God is flowing from our lives, we need not worry about the presentation. The words won't be a presentation, they will be our lives. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/5/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, about the quote that you used from St. Francis, I don't think I agree with it perhaps in the way you are using it. "Preach the gospel at all times, and when necesary use words." When aren't words necesary? Luther has a good quote, I think I've used it before, "Love God, ha, most days I hate Him." If we simply live our lives as testamonies to God, can you deny the fact that how you live the vast majority of the time is contrary to how God wants you to live? Don't get me wrong, if someone can live a life that "flows" God in all aspects and represents the Gospel in a true manner, Amen. But is that even possible? Therefore, words are of the uttmost importance lest we display a gospel that is perverted. The only reason I bring this up, is because I use to love tht quote until I thought about it a little more. What are your opinions?
thanks
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/6/2003 5:18 AM (GMT -6) | | borg,
Good point. Considering what you say, “God flowing from our lives” seems like a pretty vague statement.
Ok. Meph Man, here is what I’m thinking you are saying with regard to “IMPRECISION OF LANGUAGE” What I think you are saying is that there is a “gap” between what the speaker WANTS to say and what he DOES say. This can lead to misunderstanding. Hence we have a need for greater clarification. Because words possess a range of meaning, that means that even the best communicator in the world will be misunderstood at times.
Misunderstandings become increasingly difficult when meaning has to be carried over from one language to another. For example, nuances cannot be expressed well in the RECEIVING tongue because the forms of expression are not universal. Language is also in CONSTANT MOTION. That is, the language of both the text and the reader. Sentences can change their meaning in a new situation and can become quite unintelligible. Would this be what you mean by “IMPRECISION OF LANGUAGE?”
My understanding of what is meant by the “myth of certainty” (as I believe Daniel Taylor meant it) comes down not only to the problem of language but also is due to:
A. The diversity of understanding found within Christianity (all branches).
B. Epistemological humility. (we are finite and God is infinite)
C. The complexity of Creation.
D. Faith.
So, it seems to me that when the early church (as well as us) TESTIFIED AND PROCLAIMED what God OBJECTIVELY did not only in creation but as well as in their (and OUR) OWN LIVES, in Christ, they had psychological certainty about it. For example, it seems like nonsense to say that Paul did not intend to communicate objective truth when he proclaimed that Christ died for our sins or that he or the other writers were not concerned about the bodily resurrection when they proclaimed that Christ had risen from the dead. To assert these things have implications for my existence. 1 Cor 15:14 And these things are true (possess relevance) APART from my existence. However, before a redemptive fact can be EXISTENIALLY MEANINGFUL, it MUST first be fact. Now, there may be all kinds of evidence for the empty tomb, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t have 100% certainty of it. We don’t have 100% “PROOF” that Christ rose from the grave. All we can say is that the tomb was empty and leave the rest to faith.
Question. Doesn’t the TESTIFYING AND PROCLAMATION to what GOD OBJECTIVELY DID (<---isn't that a proclamation of certainty?) require “psychological certainty” contra the “myth of certainty?”
I’m trying to get some clarification. Maybe I’ve read to much of Miss E into what you have said, but I don't think I have. I think you are both pretty much on the same page on this. By the way, did you ever get, “The Myth of Certainty?”
P.S. This is why this is sooooo right on:
quote:
I formally acknowledge the significant limitations of my knowledge and of the tentative nature of my probable belief and opinions about reality (which together, I shall heretofore call my “convictions”) that necessarily accompany my finitude. Though I hold my convictions to be true, I realize that they are still convictions nonetheless, and cannot be proven to be objectively true. My convictions are subjectively appropriated. As such, my convictions are only truly binding upon myself, my worldview, and my actions, for I am not ultimately in charge of or responsible for anyone else’s state in life but my own.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/6/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
Ok. Meph Man, here is what I’m thinking you are saying with regard to “IMPRECISION OF LANGUAGE” What I think you are saying is that there is a “gap” between what the speaker WANTS to say and what he DOES say. This can lead to misunderstanding. Hence we have a need for greater clarification. Because words possess a range of meaning, that means that even the best communicator in the world will be misunderstood at times.
Yes. Instead of saying…
Given the current context of our discussion and my current understandings of my subjectively held convictions about the Christian faith (which I believe to be true), I believe certain things about my Creator including that Creator’s existence. One of those things that I believe about the Creator (if said Creator exists) is that It holds my very existence in continuity. So, in having my beliefs about the Creator, my acknowledging this Creator’s possible existence has certain implications for my understand of my present existence.
…I said…
Yes, I do know this by mere existence. Why? Because I know my Creator.
When I said the latter, my ultimate understanding was of the former. But WHY say all that every time??
Imprecision of language.
*********************************
Brandon:
quote:
Question. Doesn’t the TESTIFYING AND PROCLAMATION to what GOD OBJECTIVELY DID (<---isn't that a proclamation of certainty?) require “psychological certainty” contra the “myth of certainty?”
No. This is like saying that I can’t testify to or proclaim the fact that I believe that my friends like me. Of COURSE, I can’t know that for certain, but I have warrants to believe it is the case. Instead of falling into hyperskepticism, I CHOOSE to place commitment in the belief that they do like me. Think about it. If I wanted to, I could doubt EVERY good action they ever did to me. But I choose not to. And this is part of a conviction that I can TESTIFY to and PROCLAIM.
Same way with God. Now, sure SOME people need this psychological certainty to do this, but not EVERYONE.
Clearer?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/6/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | More of what I said in my "Statement about Faith"
"Convictions, being subjectively held as they are, can be held and expressed very passionately. It is not unreasonable to expect a person of conviction to want to persuade others of the “truth” of their convictions. This is actually a good thing, if it insures that this person will truly bring the most salient and powerful warrants for their belief to the fore. However, this must be in some way conditioned by everything that has been said before. Even in the most passionately spoken conviction, there should be some level of humility with respect to the very tentative nature of said conviction. The best way, I feel, to do this is to BEAR WITNESS to one’s conviction rather than attempting to CONVERT others.
Testimony and/or proclamation are parts of BEARING WITNESS to one's conviction. And both are CONTEXTUALLY applied and have various FORMS. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/6/2003 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
More of what I said in my "Statement about Faith"
"Convictions, being subjectively held as they are, can be held and expressed very passionately. It is not unreasonable to expect a person of conviction to want to persuade others of the “truth” of their convictions. This is actually a good thing, if it insures that this person will truly bring the most salient and powerful warrants for their belief to the fore. However, this must be in some way conditioned by everything that has been said before. Even in the most passionately spoken conviction, there should be some level of humility with respect to the very tentative nature of said conviction. The best way, I feel, to do this is to BEAR WITNESS to one’s conviction rather than attempting to CONVERT others.
Testimony and/or proclamation are parts of BEARING WITNESS to one's conviction. And both are CONTEXTUALLY applied and have various FORMS.
What sorts of contexts and form bear on how we bear witness?
Doesn't this also involve fallible judgement calls?
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/6/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
When I said the latter, my ultimate understanding was of the former. But WHY say all that every time??
Imprecision of language.
Gotcha. I mean, why EXPLAIN yourself all the time? So when you say you “KNOW” your Creator, you KNOW him to the extant of what you can ASCERTAIN.
quote:
Brandon:
quote:
Question. Doesn’t the TESTIFYING AND PROCLAMATION to what GOD OBJECTIVELY DID (<---isn't that a proclamation of certainty?) require “psychological certainty” contra the “myth of certainty?”
No. This is like saying that I can’t testify to or proclaim the fact that I believe that my friends like me. Of COURSE, I can’t know that for certain, but I have warrants to believe it is the case. Instead of falling into hyperskepticism, I CHOOSE to place commitment in the belief that they do like me. Think about it. If I wanted to, I could doubt EVERY good action they ever did to me. But I choose not to. And this is part of a conviction that I can TESTIFY to and PROCLAIM.
Same way with God. Now, sure SOME people need this psychological certainty to do this, but not EVERYONE.
Clearer?
So in saying that the early church (and ourselves) testify and proclaimed what God has done in Christ, they did this only to the extant that they COMMITTED THEMSELVES to that belief. In other words, they did not have to be certain that particular events were objectively factual, (i.e. Christ rose from the dead by supernatural means), but they had WARRANTS for believing it to be the case. And in the end, committed themselves to that belief.
Do you see why I was asking for clarification?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:05 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 |
|
|