Things seem to be moving along fairly well so far. Since the first biographical question we've had official questions from both me and Trev. Again, any contributor is welcome to post an official question at any point and ask for replies. Also, any commentator is welcome to post in comments requesting a specific question. I will absolutely take any such question and post it officially as long as it falls anywhere near the very broad topical reach of the blog.
Conversation on Trev's post seems to be slowing down, and my kind-of-unofficialish-questionlike post seems to be pretty slow as well. As always, if those topics are still of interest to you please keep commenting in the threads. I know I check them almost daily and I think our other contributors and readers check them regularly too. That said, I think it's time for a new official question.
This time I'm going to take Jon's and Dustin's advice and go with something a little bit more specific. I'm also going to vary the format slightly. There has been some back and forth discussion about practical v. theoretical problems. Like Jon I think that the practical and theoretical are both completely necessary. I also realize, however, that they do represent two different kinds of conversations. As an attempt to let both conversations happen I'll ask this question in two ways. First as a theoretical/theological question, and second as a practical/ecclesiological question. This one arises out of several of the comments in Trev's question and the responses to it.
On the theological end:
Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking? If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? If not, how do you deal with both the extensive biblical witness to the importance of active evangelism and also the long history and tradition of the Church that values evangelism and missionary work? Has the Church always been wrong and we're just getting it right now?
On the practical end:
If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church? What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why? If evangelism is not a legitimate enterprise, how then should the church relate to the non-Christian world generally and to non-Christians in particular? Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture?
Well folks, there you are. Have at it.
Conversation on Trev's post seems to be slowing down, and my kind-of-unofficialish-questionlike post seems to be pretty slow as well. As always, if those topics are still of interest to you please keep commenting in the threads. I know I check them almost daily and I think our other contributors and readers check them regularly too. That said, I think it's time for a new official question.
This time I'm going to take Jon's and Dustin's advice and go with something a little bit more specific. I'm also going to vary the format slightly. There has been some back and forth discussion about practical v. theoretical problems. Like Jon I think that the practical and theoretical are both completely necessary. I also realize, however, that they do represent two different kinds of conversations. As an attempt to let both conversations happen I'll ask this question in two ways. First as a theoretical/theological question, and second as a practical/ecclesiological question. This one arises out of several of the comments in Trev's question and the responses to it.
On the theological end:
Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking? If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? If not, how do you deal with both the extensive biblical witness to the importance of active evangelism and also the long history and tradition of the Church that values evangelism and missionary work? Has the Church always been wrong and we're just getting it right now?
On the practical end:
If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church? What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why? If evangelism is not a legitimate enterprise, how then should the church relate to the non-Christian world generally and to non-Christians in particular? Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture?
Well folks, there you are. Have at it.
3 comments:
I like this question Colin. Looking forward to seeing where it goes.
Wow....deep stuff Colin. I'll go for the practical this time. I think that as I read Jesus' message, it is about bringing healing to the sick, rest to the weary, wholeness to the broken. I also don't think those things come just from a human interaction, but on a deeper level from God. So, I think that "evangelism" works towards that end, of bringing people to a relationship with God that brings wholeness to their lives (although that can never be totally realized here on earth). I think that evangelism is a loaded term though, and what it looks like now - as compared to 10 years ago and longer, has changed based on our culture. Relationship is king, not a guy at the front converting people. What works is more important than what sounds good. I think we have gone from a faith that "saves me" to seeing people wanting something that brings broader change to the world - thus the message to Jesus takes on new overtones. Just some starting thoughts... Scott
Pretty quiet after all the controversy in posts past! I thought I'd come on here after our first week with twins and discover I'd missed out on more pandemonium.
On this questions I can't disagree with what Scott has already said.
I do think we have to hold two things in tension: our belief in the importance of participatory fellowship with God in Christ and our belief that God's care for people extends to the whole of their lives and not just some separated "soul".
I am not incredibly pleased with that brand of evangelism known as "soul-winning". Nor do I see it as altogether honest to simply care for the physical needs of others with little to no immediate concern to give testimony to what one believes so centrally about life.
In response to Colin's questions directly:
Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking?
To convert? No. Where would I ever get the idea that I could convert someone? God converts. This is the presumptious sort of talk that only those who are looking for an altar-call prayer can really quantify. However, is it a legitimate undertaking to seek to share one's faith and find others who join with it? You bet. Who doesn't do this? Why should Christians, of all people, not want to testify to their beliefs and win others over?
If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Don't impose them at all. Share them. To use those old school words and to reinvest them with their literal meaning: Testify! Witness! This isn't imposing at all.
Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? Colonialism is imposing, yes. And colonialism is the art of bringing in our own cultural baggage into what it means for someone to "convert" and insisting that this be adhered to before we can put a notch on the scoreboard. But sharing our faith does not need to impose in this way. It does need to spell out key life values in advance, however, and so I suppose there is a "demand" there that can not be hidden or slipped in under cover of a high pressure sales pitch. Even then, we have to assess the moral demands of the faith for each contextual situation.
On the practical end: If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church?What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why?
Out of bounds? Well, I don't konw about evangelistic services. I think they prey upon the emotions too easily and avoid sticky questions and apologetics too much. Then again, there are those people out there just searching for a group to be enfolded in which has a direction for them to go with their riddled emotional wounds, and so long as manipulation is avoided there may still be a place for the "altar call".
There are a lot of things that I don't think are "out of bounds" in principle, but should be avoided because of the horrible stereotypes that they know conjur up for people and for the way they have come across. This list might include hellfire and brimstone street-corner preaching, tracts on windshields, TV evangelism of the old school variety, and "evangelistic ambushes" (where I invite someone to coffee to conveniently ambush them with a chance meeting with a pastor or I invite someone to a banquet or a concert where, by chance, a high-pressure pitch for the gospel will be made). Tha last one is probably out of bounds in principle, but others not necessarily.
In bounds?
- Intelligent conversation about "our" worldview (which is basically our encounter with the history of God's self-revelation in Israel, Christ, and the Church).
- Emotional support which is open and honest about personal failings and genuine about the importance we find in things such as forgiveness, confession, etc.
- Self-giving love in its many varieties, and to the extent that can only be motivated by the sacrificial spirit of Christ.
To conclude: Evangelism. I don't like the word unless it just means being willing, even eager, to talk about the "good news" that one believes in and to discuss how it meets regular life, and not only to discuss it, but to bring it to everyday life. If we are not witnesses to Jesus Christ I daresay we are not Christians in any meaningful sense at all. What that looks like is debatable, but I don't think one can be a Christian for very long without being ready and eager to engage people in discussion about it AND to act upon it through acts of self-giving in society for the wholistic well-being of others.
Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture? Both.
Post a Comment